Thursday, March 27, 2014

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.

Saturday, March 22, 2014


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!"

Friday, March 21, 2014

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.

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

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.

Friday, March 07, 2014

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)

Thursday, March 06, 2014

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!

Monday, March 03, 2014

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.

Sunday, March 02, 2014

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.