Spacetime, Energy, Bits

Most of these I ran across in just that form ... I just accumulated insights I ran across (being able to recognize them as insights, something most people are utterly incapable of) until at some point I went beyond what anyone had thought of.

1. spacetime exists, energy exists, both are mysterious
2. we see space because it actually exists and our brains decompose it that way
3. information / entropy exists, information / entropy is NOT spacetime OR energy
4. information / entropy is JUST AS fundamental as spacetime and energy, despite physicists' lack of any grasp of this
5. energy CARRIES information / entropy
6. the universe is MATH, the only thing that distinguishes pure math from physics is "physicality" which is probably this mysterious arbitrary substance energy cause there sure as fuck are bits and dimensions in math
7. math + time = computation
8. the holographic principle says that any N-dimensional non-local theory is equivalent to an N+1 dimensional local theory
9. time is just the dimension along which information / entropy is conserved
10. information vs entropy are higher order related to values / loops and at lower order there is simply bits

Local means that bits can only interact with nearby bits. Non-local means that ANY bit can interact instantly with EVERY other bit in the whole universe.

So time is just local space + weird interaction with information. Local space is just a way we have of organizing information as "nearby" other information by moving up one dimension above what actually exists (so if 1D your brain moves up to 2D, if 3D your brain moves up to 4D). And non-local space seems very weird but also exceedingly abstract, however it's also exceedingly simple: it's the bulk effects of information. And of course Information is just bits
your mind likes. And energy is just ... your perception of math from the inside of math, the quality of existing in THIS branch of math - in logic it's the predicate "exists".

It's all incredibly simple if you understand each of those individual concepts, these are just their interrelations. What's missing is the meanings of life, mind (derived: intelligence, soul), entropy, chaos, order, energy, representation and how these interrelate. But to clearly explain those you need to understand values and loops, and those I haven't cracked yet.

There Are Two Kinds of People

Those who say there are two kinds of people and those who don't. The former are all sociopaths.

Then there's the people who say "we all". It doesn't matter whether it's "we're all in this together", or "we're all the same" or "we're all different". Retards, every single last one of them.

And then there's people who say "there are 197 different kinds of people as of last count" or "there are 21 different kinds of people in the Personality Description Language".

And those are the people who say it not because it's in some book or some fellow retard told them so, but because it's the truth. Which means, they're the people you will never trust.

Everyone is much more interested in what the sociopaths have to say.

Physics: Think Like A Narcissist

In Elder Scrolls: Skyrim, the software developers put in a Time God who controls the world's timeline. In the previous games of the Elder Scrolls series, various events happen in different ways since the gamers control the outcome.

But aha! None of that ever matters because the software developer decided to merge all those divergent timelines back together. So in-game, there is a god, the Time God, who took all the divergent timelines of previous in-game historical events and brought them back together.

The software developer is the god that decided how things really happened inside the game and made it so the actions of players never really mattered. And this is now official history and an official Theory of Time inside the game. And this is how I'm sure narcissists view the world because it's got that insane personalistic feel to it.

And because narcissists worship gods, and the time god in that game series is the king of the gods (a Narcissist slot) and because Time Gods is what the Tibetan Buddhists worship, and the Tibetan Buddhists are fucking sociopaths. So the evidence is pretty conclusive.

As well, Presentism is sociopathic. Only the Present matters, neither the past nor the future even exist. And others' perspectives on time or reality don't matter. As well, this worldview stinks of "how the cosmos was created" which is a Narcissist worldview and obsession. And is opposed to "what is the cosmos".

But Elder Scrolls isn't what I wanted to talk about. I wanted to talk about Copenhagen. In Copenhagen, physicists (empiricists every single one of them) make experiments and then they see the result of these experiments with their own eyes. And because they see the results with their own eyes, that makes them real.

Narcissists trust only what they can see with their own eyes because nobody else is real. Except of course other narcissists who can't be trusted, and psychopaths (goes double), and Nazis (same deal). The world doesn't just exist due to the evidence of their own eyes, it can only exist thanks to themselves. Thanks to their miraculous power of perceiving the world.

So then these good toadying Narcissists who've made all these experiments ask themselves how the cosmos was made. And it's fucking obvious! The cosmos was made through the miraculous power of perceiving the cosmos. Physicists create reality by observing "wavefunction collapse" so by the same token God creates the cosmos by observing the cosmos!!

It's so fucking obvious! God is just. like. them. He's just another narcissist ... exactly like everyone else. And the whole universe and the whole entire cosmos works on the principles that narcissists understand the world by!! Again, so fucking obvious. The evidence is literally as clear as your own eyes! Everyone who cares (only) about what they can see with their own personal eyes can see it's the only option!!

Niels Bohr, the great "father" of Copenhagen, was a sociopath. He isn't the first and won't be the last sociopath doing physics. And isn't it awesome how inclusive physics is that sociopaths can freely work in it and get acclaim and renown and even dictate what is and isn't physics for a whole fucking century?!

Is it any surprise then that Creationism (Big Bang) was heralded as "enlightenment"? Too bad that the truth about the universe (eternal chaotic inflation) doesn't fit so neatly the preconceptions of any idiotic retarded personality type. It literally fits the preconceptions of one of the smartest (and rarest) personality types.

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
means!

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.

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 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 dispel 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 Java 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.

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 today.

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, bathroom-running
• 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 reader.

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 playing.

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 catastrophically.

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 Nietzscheanism.

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 unsurprising.

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 quality.

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 cliché humour is not cliché because it is true of real life. It is true because it is absurd. It is funny because it is nonsense.

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 retarded. ABSURD. NONSENSE.

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="" li="" 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.

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 Hell.

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!

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 diverged.

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!

AI and robots

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/technology/10274420/Artificial-intelligence-will-take-the-place-of-humans-within-five-years.html

Assuming the pseudo-AI replaces 1000 operators in each of 4 shifts then that's 4000 humans 20 years 20k a year = 160 million. That's what it's WORTH so if it costs less than that then the difference is profit.

There will be interesting times in China and India in the near future, with AI and robots. But especially with India that fashioned itself the call center of the world. Because its population is largely uneducated and used to a corrupt ineffective government.

Violence vs Gutlessness

It seems to me that the policies put in place with the intent to curb violence are often misguided.

Why are you surprised? Why are you sad that this is happening? This is predictable.

These gutless retards are saying that violence itself is the problem. That if everyone just held hands and sang kumbaya then everything would be fine. They're delusional lunatics without any grasp of the real world.

But let me ask you this, if some genocidal cannibal was raping your wife, do you believe he would DESERVE violence on him? Or that he should be "stopped"?

In the gutless mindset, the guy raping your wife isn't any worse than her getting a papercut. Both of them are bad and they are as bad as it gets. It certainly isn't the case that some injury is WORSE than another injury.

And since Gutless people don't recognize the existence of Evil (things that are more than slightly bad), they also don't recognizethe existence of Evil people. Therefore, they don't believe it's GOOD when Evil people receive violence.

Gutsy people think Evil people getting pounded is exactly how it should be and exactly what they deserve and exactly what they've been asking for. Gutless people meanwhile think that Evil doesn't exist and that the answer to Evil is to ignore it. That the PERCEPTION of Evil is the problem.

Violence isn't the problem, it is the solution to many, many problems. The problem of violence perpetrated by Evil people. Or the existence of Evil people period.

So why are you so surprised when after blind retards eliminate the solution to a great many of life's problems, they cause more problems?

It's as if there were a CONNECTION there. It's like it's MAGIC. It'sas if calling the blind retards "misguided" is like calling the oceana little wet or a salt mine a little salty.

Rationality

What is rationality? It's the ability to make life plans which reach your goals. Funny thing though, the INABILITY to (care about) making such plans is the defining trait of psychopaths. In other words, Narcissists qualify as rational. No wonder Narcissist shitheads like Yudkowsky go on and on and on about rational this and rational that. He's basically crowing in triumph "I am not a psychopath!!" like it's this marvelous achievement worthy of acclaim. Worthy of adulation even!

And for your information, I first heard that definition of rationality many years before I'd ever heard of Yudkowsky or even knew what Narcissism or Psychopathy were. I heard about it from a philosophy book trying to justify Good according to Evil principles. It was a disgusting exercise but for the exercise to work the disgusting fucker obviously had to admit Narcissists and Right-Wing Authoritarians. You know, to even HAVE Evil in his assumptions.

Man, it sounds so self-aggrandizing to hear "I am not a psychopath!! HAHA. IN YOUR FACE PERSON WHO ISN'T LIKE ME!"

Why Charities Are Pathetic

charity means you're so hopeless it's obvious to everyone

benefactor means you've so much potential that it's obvious to someone

Now if only Yudkowsky's patron weren't so fucking idiotic and deluded and cut that Narcissist asshole's purse-strings!

I'm pretty satisfied with this short and elegant proof that displaces pages and pages of arguments and facts. Especially since I don't have the link to that ancient article about how Northern charities were displacing Southern governments and keeping money flowing from the South to the North while keeping control firmly in the North despite decolonization.

Against Meditation

Some retarded Gaian morons go on about how much they like meditation and how it works for them. Being incapable of logic, and thinking in terms of magic, they "think" (if their mental processes can even be construed as thinking) that "it works for us, and it has a biological effect on our human bodies, others have human bodies, therefore it must work for others" which of course is pure magic.

The REASON meditation works for Gaians is because they LIKE IT and it RELAXES them. Why? Because among their most basic values they have continuation, staying and restraint. So sitting there like a lump makes them feel great. Whereas for 90% of people, it just makes them feel like a fucking idiot! And for over 10% of the 90%, the thought of "emptying your mind" feels like DEATH!

But never mind that, EVERYONE must LOVE sitting there like a fucking lump! Despite the fact that people in general have far less averse reactions towards massages than meditation (applicability 70-100% vs 10%), no that's not proof of anything. The fact that people like massages better than meditation isn't disproof of how awesome meditation is according to Gaians who like meditation. The fact that church is just as applicable as meditation to the general population also says nothing.

According to these yoyos, if you dislike meditation then it's evidence you're an inferior person who "won't try new things" and you should just try it anyways, the same way as you should try slitting your wrists or snorting cocaine on the word of a drug addict. According to them, you should MODIFY your likes and dislikes in order to like meditation and BE MORE LIKE THEM. Because EVERYONE should be a Gaian!

I firmly believe that Gaians' retarded antics are why the word "justifiable" exists in "justifiable homicide". They should be killed until they learn their lesson. That being: to not even try to fuck with anyone else. Those disrespectful smarmy sons of whores. Speaking of whores, even those have greater applicability (30-70%) than meditation.

But don't waste your breath trying to convince them. Like I said, magical thinkers. You might as well be talking to a wall. Only having their lives threatened will ever convince them, because that is what they cherish above all things.

On Titles and the Trappings of Power

having a title is not meaningless. True, having a title doesn't make you different, but people calling you by that title absolutely makes you different in other peoples eyes

Only if your Presence tops out at Passive and your only source of power is what society will tolerate.

Do you believe that Hugo Chavez Friaz cared what people called him? How about Mustafa Kemal? Or Napoleon Bonaparte? Or Alexander the Invincible?

These men HAD titles. It didn't matter what they were CALLED. It didn't matter whether people called them by their titles. Their titles were ... objective facts of reality and utterly inseparable from them.

Men get called King and Prince and Majesty. But very few men are Majestic. And those that are, they don't get called King or Prince or Majesty. Because it's beneath them. It would be saying that their title is something conferred on them by others. Rather than something that's part of them, merely recognized by others.

Power, REAL power, is not the kind that's conferred by society, that's conferred by calling you Sir or Mister or King. It's the kind you can create yourself by your very being. It's the kind that can never be separated from you. The kind that is forever a part of you, inextricably bound up in who you are.

You don't know what power is and you don't know what titles are for. You believe that power is social position. So, so wrong. You believe that titles are conferred on people, that they must be constantly and continuously supported and tolerated by society. So, so wrong.

Everything you understand of titles and power is the meaningless trappings of people who pathetically ape real titles and power. It's a Cargo Cult of power. You believe that by having the trappings of power, you will actually have power. (smh)

Troll vs Village Hick

Damned punks!

They come to our COMMUNITIES!

They violate our TRADITIONS!

Communities we built from the SWEAT OF OUR BROW!

Sonny, get off my lawn!

I'm a gonna call the Housing Association on you!

Emoting vs Emo-ing

Emoting is Subcomponent level, it's being part of an experience. Emo-ing is Passive level, it's a pathetic disgusting distancing mechanism used to NOT be part of an experience.

Emoting means venting at the cause of your frustration or anger. It means expressing an emotion right there and then when you feel it. Emo-ing means channeling all this emotion and feeling into ... nothing.

Emo-ing is feeling an emotion so you shut it down then you go to your room and cry and scream about the unfairness and hellishness of the world.

What the fuck is this bullshit?! THAT's how pathetic and disgusting emo-ing is!

Emo-ing is PURE DISTANCE. You vent your emotions when they CAN NO LONGER BE PRODUCTIVE! When they can no longer do ANYTHING!

Now do you fucking get it what you're doing wrong you emo-ing retard? And why it's wrong? Not just low and pathetic but lying? First you refuse to say the truth about your emotions and feelings! And then when it no longer means anything you speak it.

In an empty room.

To a statue.

PRETENDING that it's alive and will CARE about you.

Meaning, deluding yourself.

Emos think statues care. Emos think strangers care. Emos delude themselves that their emotions are by themselves somehow magically intrinsically important. Despicable.

And writing a blog post about the retarded emo fucker you're dealing with isn't emo-ing. Nor emoting for that matter. It's threatening abject humiliation so they will fucking stop.

Reply to a Geopolitician: Handle

I confess, I didn't read the entirety of the article Review of “The Rise of China vs. The Logic of Strategy” by Edward Luttwak as I found it tedious and contrary to my values.

There is a simply wonderful speech by Donald Rumsfeld to the Realists which I've never been able to find again. In it he disdainfully informs the Realists that while they study the world's geopolitics in ever more obsessive detail, he will act upon the world. And by the time they're done studying his actions and accounting for their consequences, he will have acted still more, making their studies even more irrelevant.

Donald Rumsfeld is a narcissistic shithead, what you call a neo-con, but what goes for Evil goes for Good too. There is more than institutions powered by the herd-following cow-like behaviour of people in the world. There are Great Men in history too. Actors with free will. Actors that can make institutions irrelevant, that can make institutions disappear, and raise entirely new ones in their place.

Can you say that Hugo Chavez' actions were constrained by the culture and institutions he grew up in and had to work with? No, because he BULLDOZED THEM UNDER. Can you say anything different about Mustafa Kemal named Ataturk? Mao Tse Tung? Napoleon Bonaparte? Peter the Great? Alexander the Invincible? These were Great Men because they possessed Willpower. And with it came Free Will. They were the real deal, not the pathetic imitators whose shackles you cheerfully point out.

Mao Tse Tung deliberately destroyed 2000 years of history in the Cultural Revolution. Why? Because he felt that China needed its history destroyed in order for its people to survive, let alone thrive. That is Willpower. Historians and anthropologists and other cultural relativists may hate him for it but his people love him for the exact same reason. Or came to love him ... eventually. Had China's history not been so toxic, then Mao would have changed his society in a totally different way. He would still have changed it just as much, and still had as many detractors.

You talk about the “massive amounts of uncertainty which itself expands rapidly the further out you forecast” and when you do I imagine you looking upon it with a horrified wide-eyed stare and mounting dread. You sound to me like a right-wing authoritarian obsessed with stasis and stability, obsessed with obsession itself, with filing and categorizing and classifying. And neatness.

That massive amount of uncertainty is the free will of great men. And I can easily imagine you wanting nothing better than to crush all free will everywhere in order to make the world predictable, uniform and orderly. But guess what? If that is your wish, you're not going to get your way.

And in fact, from your point of view, the world will only become MORE and MORE unpredictable and uncertain and wildly unstable. And definitely unlike the past.

Because free will is mounting across the world. It has been increasing over the last century or two according to objective measures. Such as the fact city men and women in the early 1900s reacted to the deluge of life options they had with nervous exhaustion. A reaction hard to fathom nowadays.

Free will has a rhyme and reason and song which is totally alien to you. But its rhythm and language while alien to you is something that I love and cherish. It’s something I value. It's something I UNDERSTAND and yes, by understanding it I can predict it. And so … I’m winning. Over you.

You can keep your stupid blog posts and you can keep your stupid life. The fight is out there in the real world and you, a representative of the forces of stasis and predictability and subservience to overwhelming institutional forces, are losing. Your whole side is losing.

Speaking of your predictability horizon, I am reminded of Frank Herbert’s Dune when Paul Atreides spoke to the Bene Gesserits.

Try looking into that place where you dare not look! You’ll find me there, staring out at you!

and here’s another good one:

The eye that looks ahead to the safe course is closed forever.

Your precious institutions … gone forever. They will be wiped out from history. That’s what lies beyond the predictability horizon you so dread. Don’t let it keep you up at night.

Response to a Gaian Saying "We gotta stop messing with the planet"

Messing with the planet? Yeah, that's right, because in your retarded antedeluvian ideology, things were PRISTINE and CLEAN and BEAUTIFUL back 9000 years ago.

Back before humans invented fire to cook inedible food. Back before humans invented agriculture so they wouldn't have to leave their children to die. Back before humans invented caring for their children instead of leaving them to fend for themselves like the cannibalistic monkeys we evolved from.

Back before we created wheat so we could have bread to eat. Back before we created strawberries so we could have something tasty and edible. Back before we created houses so we wouldn't die in caves. Back before we invented outhouses so we wouldn't sicken from our own feces.

Back before we learned to skin animals and wear their fur in order to escape disease-ridden jungles. Those "paradises" you think so fondly and proudly of. Ever visited one? Naah, don't need to after all, they're picturesque and BEAUTIFUL. That's all you need to know.

Back before we invented culture to escape crazy psychopathic murderous evolutionary throwbacks from our own species. Throwbacks that look and act remarkably like wolves and chimpanzees following their BIOLOGICAL NATURE. Isn't biology great?!

Back before we invented technology so that we could have the time and the wealth necessary to solve our own problems. To wash our cheaply manufactured clothes so we could be hygienic and not be plague-ridden.

To warm our hearths without burning the trees you so cherish and without burning the polluting coal you so hate or drown whole forests with hydroelectric dams but rather with nuclear fire.

Back when our entire species was at the mercy of a single bad tsunami or earthquake or Ice Age. Back before we created technology that might let us divert an Extinction Level Event-type asteroid. Or escape the Yellowstone Supervolcano that's set to blow any millenium now by going orbital.

Things were SO MUCH BETTER back before humans MESSED WITH all the evil things that Nature threw at us, weren't they? Starvation, deprivation, illiteracy, mass murder, genocide, cannibalism, infanticide, and death. THOSE were the times!!

Man, this is why I despise you Gaians. You're neither Good nor Evil and you hate everything Good in the universe as equally as everything Evil. And it just so happens that everything Good in the universe was created by humanity so logically you hate humanity.

So don't try to handwave away my principled contempt and scorn for you by claiming I'm having a bad day. I could be having the best day of my life and I would still despise you.

In fact, if I got to watch you doused in gasoline and got to throw a lit match on you, and get away with it, that would make my day. Why? Because I hate people who hate humanity like you do.

Humanity is my freaking species and it is capable of greatness, it is uniquely capable of Goodness. Even though it has wholly squandered its potential so far. So I get rather ... upset when know-nothing shitheads like you try to insinuate that it should be killed off.

And I know very well that in your heart of hearts that's exactly what you believe. That it would simply be more CONVENIENT if humanity didn't exist at all. That it would somehow be BETTER.

Your continued existence is inimical to that of humanity's. And it is why you ought to die.

On Reddit and other Discussion Communities

I just realized why I despise reddit and grew desperate to have an excuse to leave it the first time around. Because it's pathetic in a very specific way. Because it's intrinsically Passive. Because it's a forum for useless navel-gazers who do nothing but watch the world go by.

Even Fanfiction.net isn't so pathetic. Whether the authors there are good or evil, whether they're pathetically pandering to their audience or they're writing for themselves or writing to make a point. At least the authors there aren't Passive. They're doing something.

And do you know what's the most infuriating and despicable thing about those useless wastes of skin? In their opinions, THEY believe that asking serious and trenchant political or philosophical questions is useless navel gazing.

Because THEY all think that chit chatting with like-minded others and maintaining community standards and keeping everything ticking and being liked by others and being self-satisfied and patting each other on the back ... they think this has VALUE. It's despicable and repulsive.

So I'm free. I'm free of that despicable community. That and any other one. I can come into it as I please. I can waste some time on it if I'm bored. And then ... I can leave. Because I realize WHY I despise it. It's not some vague feeling. It's intrinsically inimical to everything I hold dear. I would nuke reddit and exterminate all redditors if I could and feel like I'm doing the world a favour.

Discussion Communities and all their participants can die for all I care. In fact, it would please me if they do.

A/theists Are Strutting Pigeons Who Believe They're Victorious

You know, that was my opinion of atheists back when I was an antitheist. I call it 'the game of intellectual integrity' in mockery because I don't believe either side has any. I had to come up with all these rules in order to keep them both in line.

You will find if you play the game that it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that there are Real World Entities that ARE gods. In other words, that gods exist not just in fiction but in the real world.

Theists win the game, always. And lose in the real world. Because reality is always corrosive to fantasy. Real gods are corrosive to fantasy gods. Just like real medicine is corrosive to fantasy medicine. And real childcare advice is corrosive to child exorcisms. And viagra is corrosive to tiger penis male potency crap.

And that's why atheists are just idiots strutting around knocking all the pieces over pretending to be victorious. What victory do they gain? What victory do they achieve? What EFFECT do they have in the REAL WORLD? Nothing.

If you want to destroy religion, all you have to do is prove that real gods exist for people to be in awe of and worship. And prove that these gods are merely the equals of humanity. That will give theists pause and perspective.

Have you ever contemplated the fact that as humanity becomes ever more powerful and ever more relevant in the lives of people, as it becomes ever more competent and capable, then fantasy gods fade away into insignificance? That's why people are becoming secular.

'secular' -> converted to worshiping humanity as a god. 'humanist' -> converted to worshiping Humanity The Good as a god.

There's three levels of knowledge:

• nothing << atheists
• metaphoric << theists
• literal << antitheists 'fantasy gods people worship are Evil'
• formal << 'real gods exist and humanity is one of them'

On Conspiracy Theorists and Anti-Conspiracy Theorists

It never, ever pays to be subtle so I'll be blunt.

Neither side cares a whit about the truth or about facts or about what is or is not manipulation of facts or the truth. They are merely factions in the process of factional fighting.

Both sides are mindless herds engaged in grazing their intellectual territories and defending them against any other encroaching herd. Or other type of ungulate.

Both sides think their type of ungulate is the only kind that exist. The cows decry the sheep as insane cows. The sheep decry the cows as mindless sheep.

This factional war isn't about truth or fact or principle. It's about fucking TERRITORY. Territory which sustains their pathetic fragile emotions.

And the proof that they are pathetic and emotionally fragile? Neither side can get up the spine to actually commit a personal character assassination. They are both spineless and gormless.

The questions that should be running through your mind are:

• are you spineless and gormless?
• are you pathetic and fragile?
• why are you aligning with either side?
• why are you taking the factional fight seriously?

Atheists vs Theists: The Game of Intellectual Integrity

Inspired by Nomic.

rules:

Obvious rules that together boil down to "don't be a douchebag"

• everyone has to play
• all players have to register on the atheist or theist side
• all players must make appropriate moves until they personally admit defeat
• if one side is collectively defeated, the other side wins
• an atheist admits defeat by acknowledging that a Real World Entity is a god
• a theist admits defeat by acknowledging that an atheist has possession or ownership of all of a god in their bedroom
• anyone who can't make a move in a timely manner automatically acknowledges defeat
• a move consists of adding an item to a list in accordance to the rules and having that item survive instant nullification
• adding duplicate or meaningless items does not count as a legal move
• to count as meaningful, an item on a nullifying list must nullify another item, unless there are less than 5 items to nullify on the appropriate list.
• anyone who breaks the rules is an intellectually incompetent dishonest lying hypocrite

Important rules

• there are three lists: Real World Entities, Criteria For Godhood, Acknowledged Fictional Gods
• any logical discrepancies between RWE items and CFG items, or CFG and AFG are resolved thus: CFG nullifies RWE, AFG nullifies CFG.
• theists control the RWE list
• atheists control the CFG list
• any fictional entity whom over 90% of the population calls a god is allowed by default on the AFG list
• atheists and theists can only modify the AFG list by mutual consent

So for instance, atheists and theists could agree that entities demonstrating Narcissistic Personality Disorder don't automatically go on the AFG list even if everyone calls them gods, in exchange for entities with Anarcho-Communist personalities getting on the AFG list over their own refusal to be called gods. But until such an agreement happens, any fictional Narcissist demonstrating alien superpowers who manages to wow a fictional population of primitives gets put on the AFG list.

RWE:

• atom bomb
• world bank

CFG:

• is very impressive

AFG:

• Apollo from Star Trek: the Original Series.
• Zeus
• Q Continuum
• Akatosh, the Dragon God of Time
• 'God' from the Christian Bible

Halo

The Halo series of novels is the uplifting story of how Moralists are really Evil and we need more Narcissists to save us from them. Evil people are incapable of understanding universal principles, or the whole concept of universality. They are incapable of understanding that other people matter independently of their use or similarity to yourself. That's what makes them Evil. They're so retarded they can't understand Neutrality, forget Goodness entirely, so believe everyone is secretly like them, just lying about it. Western economists even teach that everyone is really Evil in microeconomics 101.

So in Halo, the bad guys are Moralists doing a bunch of moralist things and using Moralist names and titles. Titles like prophet and charity. Activities like conquest and hegemonization and creating Uni-minds. And of course, these are the BAD guys. Meanwhile, the protagonists are sparkly grim-faced Uber-men. Nietzsche would approve wholly and unreservedly. Cause it's not like we need the army and the navy, no we just need these few Uber-men.

The final nail in the coffin? There is another entirely different story where Moralists are really Evil and we need more ... to save us from them. Only it's not Evil people, it's Good people, preferably Anarcho-Communists. That story is The Last Angel. And not only is this story entirely different in tone and content, but the Evil Moralists in it actually ACT Evil, because they're really Right-Wing Authoritarians masquerading as Moralists.

The writers of Halo don't understand Moralists or Morality beyond the fact they hate them. They can see their actions, sort of, and they hate Moralists for their actions. The writer of The Last Angel on the other hand ... he hates Moralists for being too similar to and too easily corrupted by RWAs. And since that's not nearly enough to condemn someone to death, he makes all the bad guys genuinely Evil, by making them RWAs, and teaches the real Moralists a nasty object lesson.

Differential judgement. The Narcissistic shits behind Halo just see Moralists as different and that's enough to hate them to death. The, probably Anarcho-Communist, writer behind The Last Angel understands the differences between RWAs and Moralists enough to wish death on the former and a punch in the face to the latter. Differential judgement is a sign you've got an inkling of a clue as to people's motivations, and have an idea whom you can live with and whom you can't.

It works on the flipside too. People who want to be nice to everybody, who want peace & lovingkindness, who think everybody deserves to live ... they show no differential judgement whatsoever. And these people are just as worthless as Narcissists. Almost as undeserving of living.

Atheists' Claims About Religion Are All Wrong

Atheists claim that the problem with religion is that it's mythical, legendary, supernatural, blind faith and untrue, and that somehow these are all bad things.

First of all, there's nothing wrong with myths per se. I can think of a lot of corrosive psychopathic myths such as that America ever was a "beacon of hope and freedom" for people. I can also think of constructive ones such as Justice existing or being attainable in this our Evil world.

Secondly, there's nothing wrong with legends. For all the Narcissists and RWAs driven to be legends like Richard Feynman and Josef Stalin, there are also real legends such as Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great, Peter the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Albert Einstein, Douglas Engelbart, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Hugo Chavez Frias, Mao Tse Tung, and the list goes on.

Thirdly, the supernatural exists and is awesome. Just search for 'ultra high detail screenshots' on any search engine. The contrast in these images is impossible under any real world lighting conditions thus they are literally supernatural. Like I said, it is real and it is awesome!

Fourth, and this is the one that is most laughable because Danniel Dennet claims in his essay:

no religion holds its members to the high standards of moral responsibility that the secular world of science and medicine does! And I'm not just talking about the standards 'at the top'—among the surgeons and doctors who make life or death decisions every day. I'm talking about the standards of conscientiousness endorsed by the lab technicians and meal preparers, too. This tradition puts its faith in the unlimited application of reason and empirical inquiry, checking and re-checking, and getting in the habit of asking "What if I'm wrong?" Appeals to faith or membership are never tolerated. Imagine the reception a scientist would get if he tried to suggest that others couldn't replicate his results because they just didn't share the faith of the people in his lab!

something which is utterly laughable since doctors are butchers who are incapable of logic, rely on guesswork for their diagnoses, and routinely butcher people for prestige and money in the USA. And scientists' work is largely entropic crap that adds nothing to the sum of human knowledge, is rarely replicated, and they are all driven by an insane blind faith in a fictional "scientific method" that simply DOES NOT EXIST. To say nothing in their blind faith and membership in a communal enterprise that ossifies preexisting knowledge rather than generating insight!

Finally is the claim that religion is untrue. Well, Jesus at least is certainly and completely true. Jesus is human culture and human culture exists. Jesus is omnipresent and human culture is omnipresent. Jesus loves you and human culture loves you. You'd have to be a total fucking moron to try to argue that circa -100 to +100 CE human culture didn't suffer greatly to expunge infanticide from civilization. It happened. It's historical FACT.

No, the problem with religion is that it's FICTIONAL! It may be true fiction, fictionalized history, but it's still fiction.

There are three levels of human knowledge. The metaphoric, the literal, and the formal. Religion offers us only metaphoric knowledge. And that is why I scorn it as utterly pathetic and contemptible.

But there is another level of human knowledge beneath these three. The zeroth level of NO knowledge. And that is what atheists offer. They stupidly and idiotically offer a DEGRADATION in human knowledge!

And that is why atheists are worthless motherfuckers. Rather than being forward-thinking, forward-looking and progressive, they are anti-deluvian, backwards-looking and reactionary. They couldn't be stupider and more anti-human if they joined the SS.

Let's recap briefly,

1. no knowledge = atheists
2. metaphoric knowledge = religious
3. literal knowledge = antitheists
4. formal knowledge = people who understand what gods, souls, good and evil are and can see them in the real world

Throughout my adolescence I was an antitheist. Since then I've grown up. Most atheists it seems start out religious and then they grow DOWN.

Parenthetically, Daniel Dennet's Thank Goodness essay is laughable for another reason. Because Goodness is alien to him. Whenever he says 'thank goodness' he really means 'thank Neutrality' but that just doesn't flow right off the tongue, does it?

Prototype Theory of Language Is Wrong

There is a retarded theory in linguistics which says that human brains function on the basis of prototypical objects. You have a prototypical concept of a house cat then you have variations on the concept of house cat. You have a prototypical concept of a dog then you have variations on the concept of a dog. Well, what about K-9 the robotic dog? It doesn't look much like a fucking dog now, does it?

No, the prototypical theory of language, which seems to be considered advanced or edgy, is simply wrong. The alternative is the class-based theory of language. I will here show why it must be so. I could prove it formally but I won't, I will merely illustrate. Let's start by looking at some ... oddities of human languages. Words with disparate meanings that don't seem to hang together.

A whore is a prostitute. A whore is also someone who will do anything for attention. What do those things have to do with each other? Apparently nothing!

To arrest is to detain someone. Unless an object does it, in which case it means it's striking. Oh wait, to strike someone is to hit them. To strike is to hit a company. Striking means visually arresting. Same with stunning.

Order is strict arrangement. To order is to command.

To be observant means to see things. And to obey religious strictures.

To appropriate is to acquire against others' will. Oh wait, there's a word for that, isn't there? Stealing and thieving? Nope!

Have you ever wondered why there are distinct words for "acquiring against others' will" when Right-Wing Authoritarians do it and when Psychopaths do it?

And yet, THE VERY SAME WORD is used to refer to "sanctionable actions" performed by ... Right-Wing Authoritarians. Hell, sanction itself!

To sanction means to forbid AND to permit if you believe the retarded morons who write dictionaries. Obviously, sanction means NEITHER to forbid NOR to permit, it means something deeper and beyond the pea-sized brains of RWA compilers.

Even 'order' is beyond the retarded pea-brains of dictionary compilers. Its formal meaning is 'RWA pair-bond pos-polar: rule'. It is a CLASS. It is a SLOT in a GRID.

When you understand what is going on, it is terribly simple. All those words with their "disparate" meanings are slots in a grid and their disparate meanings are no more disparate than pirate vs raider. A raider is a land pirate, a pirate is a sea raider. Or how about forger and hacker. A hacker forges identities, a forger hacks documents. All of them are Psychopaths by the way.

The prototype theory of language, the product of thousands of academics, is a dead end. It has nothing meaningful or interesting to say about human language or the human mind. Meanwhile, I have much to say about the subject and I'm only one person. Which just goes to show that academia is the place where intelligence and originality go to die. It is The Ossifier of human knowledge.

Academia is the graveyard of comprehension and understanding. The oozing pustule on the arse of humanity. I want to see it eradicated as an institution. Its largely Evil, Narcissistic and RWA practitioners, are already losing their grip on authority. I want to see them die, their papers burnt to ashes and their names erased from history.

Ever wonder how come Right-Wing Authoritarians condemn and hate Academia but never, ever move to weaken it? Why they never ACT like it's their enemy for all their loud braying voices? Ever wonder why they HATE any alternatives to academia? It's because Academia is composed of RWAs and organized along RWA principles, except better and smarter than any retarded non-academic RWA.

RWAs hate academia because they're jealous, because they couldn't hack it, and are distressed at their own failings. Which doesn't mean that academia should be spared. Far from it. This is exactly why academia throughout the world should be incinerated and burned to the ground.

Superman Is Evil

There is a tiny minuscule difference between stability and stasis on the one hand, and holding and restraint on the other hand. The smallness of that difference is what makes Gaians the most Evil-seeming of all the non-Evil personality types. Gaians will tolerate lies and slavery, something that NONE of the other non-Evil personality types would EVER do. In fact, Gaians will *allow themselves to be slaves*, something which is utterly revolting. Uncle Tom? He was a Gaian!

Nonetheless, there IS an actual difference between the most primitive and brain-damaged of Right-Wing Authoritarians ... correction, SECOND-most primitive and brain-damaged since Malcolm X and other racial supremacists belonged to the MOST brain-damaged. As I was saying, there IS an actual difference between the kind of brain-fucked RWA who worships stability and stasis and a Gaian. That difference is more than enough to put Superman firmly on the wrong side of the line between Evil and non-Evil. Although it does explain why so many Gaians run shoulder to shoulder with RWAs in the environmental crowd.

As I said, the difference is small, tiny and minuscule. But right off the bat it makes itself felt. An RWA who seeks stability will right away become a dependent, a codependent, a mollycoddler, a mama's boy, a milksop, a weakling. Like Spike the fucking vampire. Spike who EATS HUMANS FOR FOOD. Meanwhile, a Gaian who values holding keeps like a rock in a stream. They're faithful, a personal servant, a manservant, a valet. Like Alfred the SAS trained Butler and faithful family retainer.

Don't think there's that much difference? Think you I'm just using pejoratives in the former and neutral terms in the latter? I'm not because once their COMMITMENT turns on, the milksop is going to be blindly loyal, uncaring and unseeing of any Evil performed by their mama. Their mama beats them? Oh no problem. Their mama eats human flesh? Oh no problem. Their mama sacrificed a passing stranger to the Devil to bring about the Apocalypse? DON'T DISS MOMMA!

Meanwhile, the faithful manservant becomes a bodyguard when you turn his commitment on. They'll willingly sacrifice their life for their employer. But if their employer starts becoming reckless and threatening to end the world or even merely threatening the continuation of their operations ... them's the walking papers, oh and did I forget to mention that your enemy has gunmen coming for you, sir ... right about now? And that I called them in? But you won't have to worry about them because they'll find a dead body. Goodbye sir. BANG.

Next level up is gold digger / harpy. Neither of which describe Superman, but they both describe his little girlfriend, don't they? "Oh Clark, why can't you be like Superman?" "Oh superman, my pussy gets wet because of you. I want to marry you and have your children and most of all get the status and enemy-proofness that comes from being your little bitch." She's a sick, sick bitch and most of all, EVIL. A few levels up we have the fact Superman's a fucking aristocrat (Kryptonian) who's bought into all that aristocratic crap about helping those of lesser breeding (Humans) to ensure social stability.

Parenthetically, you'd think I'm cheating. After all, women can be reliably counted on to be Evil. They are statistically speaking more Evil than men. And less creative too. Not least because they're actively encouraged to be and their brains are hardwired for it from a young age. But that doesn't explain why Lois Lane is SPECIFICALLY a gold digger / harpy rather than a self-aggrandizing bitch, or a vain sex slave, or any of the different brands of psychopath. Or even a different brand of RWA. No, the Superman story makes an almost straight line from left to right across RWA with one minor crossover in polarity at vigilante.

Going on, the differences from Gaian only widen as you go up levels. A Gaian would never EVER choose to work in the echo chambers of America the way that Clark fucking Kent does! He CHOSE to work at Evil Inc. And thinks his Evil controlling employer is "quirky". And doesn't retch at the crap he has to spew at every publication. Why? Because Clark Kent is the Good Immigrant and the Good Immigrant in Fascistic America is a naked power-worshiper! So he is. Fuck, at the surprisingly high level where RWAs are power-worshipers, Gaians are white knights selflessly supporting strangers.

A real hero will sacrifice his life for a stranger. Superman never does that! He "risks" his life for strangers, except he doesn't haha because he's the invincible stalin. Man of steel you know. Where a real hero walks into danger in order to save the lives of perfect strangers, Superman spends a few hours a day carefully polishing his Legend and making notches in his belt to keep score. And when Superman's life is ACTUALLY at risk, it's because someone is gunning for him SPECIFICALLY or someone would raze down the entire planet and wipe out his hometown. And Superman's reputation with it.

Wanting to keep YOUR possessions and YOUR friends and YOUR memories and YOUR neuroses safe is the mark of Evil. It is the mark of a total and utter lack of principles. Even Raistlin fucking Majere, the GOD OF EVIL himself, was capable of "kindness" to those who reminded him of himself and triggered his neurotic memories of his own childhood, threatening to destabilize his mind. Something that only a pathetic moron would mistake for genuine kindness! Raistlin never "went Evil", he WAS Evil all along! He just dialed his Evil all the way up to 11 by becoming a Legend.

Superman is a pathetic mockery of Truth and Justice. But he's spot-on about the American Way of power-worship and atavistic self-aggrandizement. And speaking of the American Way, 'irresestible' is a mark of godhood ... of an EVIL narcissistic god. Allah is irresistible, and wasn't America irresistible to immigrants? Yes, yes it was. Going on, is it really a surprise that in these Fascistic times, a fascist like Superman (and all journalists are fascists as they seek to regiment your beliefs) got put on the big screen in a harder, dirtier, grungier, "cooler", Eviler, more nakedly fascistic way?

Gods Exist

Plural. And this can be proved easily as a fact, not as a metaphor, so long as you examine the defining attributes of a real god.

What Gods Aren't

Some moronic retarded inbred idiots believe that gods are beings who are worshiped but counter-examples to this ridiculous claim are legion. They start with Odin All-Father who went around in the guise of an elderly male stranger.

Did Odin give up his godhood when he put on a poor traveler's cloak? Did he stop being a god because he enjoyed knowing the truth of things and knew that his followers lied to his face? Did King Gustavus Adolphus II of Sweden cease being king just because he traveled around incognito among his followers?!

What about Cronus Baby-Eater? Did he cease being a god just because nobody worshiped him anymore? Did his demotion to king and lawgiver of Latium mean he wasn't a god anymore? You'd have a hard time selling this to an Englishman since Charles the Prince of Wales is also Duke of Cornwall and Earl of Chester.

It is NARCISSISTIC to believe that HUMAN worship is what matters to a GOD! It is Narcissistic to believe that gods even WANT worship, that they must be JUST LIKE THE NARCISSIST! And while it's certainly true that many gods are narcissistic attention-seeking fucks, it is equally true that many aren't.

Other inbred morons in academe believe that gods are anthropomorphizations of the forces of nature. After all, you've got the sky god, the earth god, the fertility god, the volcano god, seems to make sense, doesn't it? Except that JESUS doesn't fit. What is he a force of nature OF? He ISN'T! And neither is his father Jehovah II the Creator. As opposed to Jehovah I the High Lord aka The Evil Deceptive Slaver.

What Gods Are

What are the attributes of a real god? It's omnipotent, omnipresent, and holds sway beyond the mere level of every person's actions but into their very thoughts or bodies. Something that disqualifies Jesus by the way and is why he was never a god. Although it does qualify his father Jehovah II the Clueless and his predecessor Jehovah I the Gutless. Nonetheless, Jesus is CLOSE to being a god and so we can learn a lot about godhood from what he is.

What is Jesus? He is the anthropomorphization of the omnipotent and omnipresent force of HUMAN CULTURE. An omnipotent and omnipresent force that suddenly became a lot more benevolent and much less harsh when Christianity came to dominate and suddenly infanticide was no longer quite so common.

Jesus wants you to live = Human culture wants you to live. Jesus absolved you of Original Sin = Human culture absolves you of the pain and death accompanying labour. Jesus exists everywhere and at all times = Human culture exists everywhere and at all times. Jesus loves you = Human culture loves you. Through Jesus you can find Life = through Culture you can find life. Enough.

Gods are not mere incarnations of the forces of nature. And gods need not be wrathful. The Blind Idiot God Azathoth of Lovecraft's is the incarnation of his cosmic indifferentism. And Jehovah II the Creator is too clueless about what he's about to even be incarnate, let alone wrathful.

Modern Gods

Anyone who knows anything at all about Judaism knows it's omnipresent and omnipotent, ruling with an iron fist all Jews' actions and thoughts themselves. It is most definitely a god. An Evil Right-Wing Authoritarian one that cherishes stasis, tribalism, orthodoxy, xenophobia and traditionalism. The atheist Jews that sought to escape the embrace of that Evil controlling god were the original Dreammakers, heralds of another Evil Psychopathic god called Hollywood, the godly incarnation of all deception.

But as we've seen, not all gods are Evil. Although all tribal gods are psychopathic which is why they were all exterminated except for Judaism the Controller and liar. So how about that America the Hegemon, ruler of the entire world? Omnipresent, check. Omnipotent, check. Dying or dead, check. It's almost entirely given way to America the High Lord, RWA Evil. It used to be the Persians only ACCUSED America the Hegemon of being The High Lord because THEY THEMSELVES were Evil and RWA. No longer.

I could go on. The European nations have semi-consciously given birth to a god, The Equalizer as direct counter to The Hegemon. And thank goodness, or I suppose Neutrality, they did so now there's still a non-Evil god active in the world even after The Hegemon succumbed to the fascist's corruptino. The Chinese are really banking on their own god The Uplifter. It just shows their desperation that they're worshiping a Clueless god like Christians do and that it's a cabal of Evil RWA engineers that created this god! Maybe they cottoned on that their traditional Evil gods weren't doing it for them.

Communism the Hegemon is dead. RWA Evil corruption had enough of a hold in both Hegemons that they tried to preempt each other rather than cooperating. Preemption is an intrinsically RWA concept. The RWA corruptors failed to get the two Hegemons to destroy the world between them (although JFK was all for taking down the entire world with his suicidal self) but it succeeded in first killing the weaker Hegemon god and now corrupting the more powerful.

There are other gods. Human history is replete with them. But as we've seen from history, gods can die. So I'm not going to be naming any of the gods being born nor their numbers, or distribution or disposition. My point is made, gods PLURAL exist. Gods PLURAL are real. And Jehovah II the clueless Creator is very unimpressive amongst them. And Jesus doesn't even rate. And you can cease worshiping the gods you pathetic worthless sycophants because only the Evil gods care!

Nothing In Nature Is Good

Narcissistic Dog

A friend of mine told me how she hates her father's dog. Her father's a Narcissist and she hates him for it. Her father loves the dog. Now, considering that Narcissists by definition can't love anyone but themselves, how can her father love the dog? Oh that's right, because the dog's a Narcissist.

Her father loves how the dog constantly fights the other pets for his attention and constantly begs and begs for his attention too. Narcissist loves Narcissist, who'd have thought it? And my friend knows and hates Narcissists and hates the Narcissistic animal.

Symbols

I could go on and on about how various animals are symbols of Evil. Rats, leeches, snakes and roaches are symbols of psychopathic Evil. Lions and peacocks and swans are symbols of Narcissistic Evil, just at different Presence levels. Dogs ... are actually RWAs. Think of the press, proudly calling themselves "watchdogs" and scornfully condemned as "lapdogs".

Either way, the press are fucking RWAs. Right-Wing Authoritarians who care only for social norms, above and beyond even their own exploitation of those norms. Nowadays, after a whole generation has been raised on Green propaganda, you have plenty of RWAs who spout Green propaganda.

Animals are symbols of Evil for a reason. And the reason is simple and obvious. It's becaues THEY ARE EVIL. Not all of them, just most of them. I mean, cows and moose aren't Evil. Elephants probably aren't, most of them. Sheep while pretty vile probably aren't Evil. Bats aren't, except for vampire bats. But honestly, how many animals are altruistic?

It's not about brainpower either. Owls are symbols of Good. Owls eat rats. Owls are pretty specialized eaters. Or how about otters? The curious little things. But more importantly, there is pretty solid evidence that personality can be traced back all the way to infancy.

Evidence

First is the fact that every Good person can trace at least some of their ideals all the way back to their first reliable memories. And this is so even for Good people with *very good* memories.

Second is the fact that words which parents use to describe toddlers can often be categorized according to personality. And while the attribution of those words is never reliable due to the weight of the parent's expectations (or their simply being Evil thus finding Good incomprehensible) the words themselves can be reliably categorized as Good or Evil.

'brat' is a word that means Narcissist. Just at a very, very low Presence level. Of course, half the time, parents accuse their children of being brats because the parents are Narcissists. But never mind that, the important thing is that it reliably means 'narcissist'. But I digress, the point is that NATURE is Evil.

Cats

Dogs like I said are Evil. They obey us because they think we're their masters, their ALPHAS. The same for horses that think 'the human' or humans in general are the herd stallion. Cats ...? Probably not. They seem like Gaians to me, neither Good nor Evil. Theoretically, all they care about is eating and fucking and drugs, and killing birds and mice. Except they don't organize their lives about it like psychopaths. They care more about blending in like Gaians do.

Man, there's gonna be a lot of Gaians that are going to be PISSED at me for telling everyone that the one reliable feature of a Gaian is that you can't pin down their personality type because what they care about above all else (even slavery or lying) is BLENDING IN. You see a guy you can't figure out who spends all his time blending in and hiding his secrets? GAIAN! If you know to look for it, their obsessive desire for hiding is the one thing that gives them away! It's hilarious!

So yeah, cats. Cats love boxes that are just about their body size. And they love patches on the floor that just happen to hide their fur coats. And they instinctively hide their feces and urine, leaving no trace of themselves for anything to track them down and kill them. And they also manage to do all that with brains the size of a peanut. BEING NOT-EVIL with a brain the size of a peanut. Remarkable.

I could go on this way about this animal or that animal. If I could be arsed about it. I have a much better idea.

Nature As A Whole

When you think of Nature as a whole, what exactly do you think? If you're Werner Herzog then you think "Overwhelming and Collective Murder". I certainly think so. And I think any Good person will too. Not does, but will. There is a reason why "law of the jungle" is synonymous with Evil.

Incidentally, Werner Herzog is obviously autistic and the part-object layer of his brain is scrambled. This makes him egocentric but doesn't mean he's egotistical, and he isn't. Fucked up and Evil mean different things, although all Evil people ARE fucked up. It's rather like the difference between 'government' and 'American government'.

Hmm, I thought that was a digression but it turns out to be on point. Because COGNITION is what separates humans from animals. Lack of cognition is what makes it so psychopaths are just mindless animals that happened to master the trick of speech. It really shouldn't be a punishable offense to kill a psychopath anymore than killing a dog is punishable. But then again morons can't tell a psychopath when they're speaking to them, so it's just as well.

All the biologists that claim we're mere animals, that there's no clear and obvious feature that separates us from animals, that there's no obvious empirical test to distinguish us, that animals are "smarter than you think", that it's all just a giant continuum ... are Evil. They're not merely retarded, idiotic, moronic and stupid. Because it's one thing to cozy up to animals, it's another to lie, and it's still another to earnestly believe all humans are Evil.<=p>

And being Evil, THEY are animals and are projecting THEMSELVES unto US. and that's not even counting the ones that WANT to be animals, that WANT to give up consciousness! Or merely proselytize and speechify that YOU should. Of course, I am using 'us' in the exclusive sense because an awful lot of you retarded morons simply LUVVV nature. And really, that ought to be a test of how Evil or close to Evil a person is.

Werner Herzog loves the Jungle ... reluctantly, against his better judgement. I'd call that Neutral, neither Good nor Evil.