Perfect Example Of Solar Zealots' Hype

In Gizmag,

It's hard to envisage that sort of system working effectively until you tweak the temperature variables and scale the whole thing up. Put this tower in a hot desert area, where the daytime surface temperature sits at around 40 degrees Celsius (104 F), and add in the greenhouse effect and you've got a temperature under your collector somewhere around 80-90 degrees (176-194 F).

Ahh, so THAT's why solar towers aren't built anywhere. Kind of a big disadvantage. And puts the scorcher on those stupid plans to have green greenhouses underneath. For free! Yeah right. Well, I always hated that stupid Desertec crap.

The amazing thing is that this paragraph above is exactly 1 paragraph and 1 photo distant from the following marketroid hype:

Because you want large tracts of hot, dry land for best results, you can build it on more or less useless land in the desert;

Far from consumers. Since when has this been an advantage?

It emits absolutely no pollution - the only emission is warm air at the top of the tower. In fact, because you're creating a greenhouse underneath, it actually turns out to be remarkably good for growing vegetation under there.

Yes that's right, they say that 80-90 degrees celsius is "remarkably good for growing vegetation under there". That's the Worshipers of the Sun God Ra for you, incapable of common sense or of comprehending 'logical contradiction'.

Oh that's right, apparently I made a mistake in assuming these would be EARTH vegetables underneath those solar towers. No, all along it was supposed to be Vulcan vegetables. I feel so stupid now.

Good Heroes Are Impossible

The whole notion of a "hero" is someone who sacrifices themselves for the herd. Someone who due to courage (suicidally low self-esteem and mindless idiocy) volunteers when the herd needs someone to die. So the whole notion of a hero is utterly despicable! And as Good people do not go along with despicable acts, we have a problem with the whole notion of a Good Hero.

No good person can ever be a hero. Because to be good means to conceive of Good and that's not something that is done easily or lightly. So, no good person can possibly be an idiot. Yet it is a fact that you, all of you, aren't worth the life of a single Good person. Not at one thousand to one, not at one million to one, and not at a billion to one.

Genuinely Good people are precious and their lives are valuable on a par with the continued existence of humanity. So you see, you're just not fucking worth it. And the FACT that you demand people sacrifice themselves for you all. The fact you use admiration and other despicable psychologically manipulative tools to control mindless herd members into suiciding for you ... only makes you less worth saving.

And as we established, a Good person will understand this because they're not an idiot. So we see that the notion of a Hero being a Good person (or vice versa) is utterly ludicrous. Batman is a Hero, therefore he cannot possibly be Good. And he happens to be Evil. Meanwhile, Hal Jordan ceased to be a hero precisely because he was Good.

Character Alignment

In AD&D there is a central concept known as character alignment which is astonishingly and staggeringly fruitful when applied to real life. It's a 2 dimensional scale. Lawful vs Chaotic and Good vs Evil.

The tools who created AD&D were Lawful Neutral retards who didn't have the slightest grasp of what Chaotic Good meant. Proof: they wrote that chaotic good characters respect good authorities. Give me a break! Could they be more ridiculous?!

Well, those retards may not have had any clue what Lawful vs Chaos meant. And they had even LESS of a clue what Good vs Evil meant since they (and everyone else) constantly tries to redefine Good as Lawful. As obedience to the herd.

But the truth is that Good means having an INDEPENDENT conception of Goodness. It does not mean that you define morality == ultimate good. How could it since morality (the well-being of the group matters) is something only the herd conceives of as good.

Neither does being of Good alignment mean you define empathy == ultimate good. And I speak authoritatively as someone who DOES define empathy == ultimate good. It is sufficient that a person define empathy as an ordinary good.

What does it mean then to have a conception of good? Well there are technical requirements and the definition is itself highly technical. And it's because of that highly technical nature that you the NPCs are ill-equipped to understand Goodness. So why bother talking about it?

With these preliminaries out of the way, it's possible to create an accurate grid of character alignment.

	Lawful	Neutral	Chaotic
Good	angels	angels	angels
Neutral	tools	cattle	activists
Evil	monsters	narcissists	psychopaths

monsters = mercenaries, dictators, batman, ruthless and without conscience

tools = academics and bureaucrats

ANGELS

Now, I'm sure you all, being NPCs (cattle or tools or activists), are greatly puzzled by the mention of Angels. Isn't Lawful Good where stereotypical Heroes and Paladins are slotted? Well, BULLSHIT!

Heroes by definition don't have any independent conception of Good as they're willing to sacrifice their lives for something as worthless as "society" which I call cattle. I seriously doubt that Paladins are any better. No, it makes far more sense to understand Heroes and Paladins as staggeringly corrupt and hypocritical compared to genuine Angels. In other words, they are Lawful Neutrals with Lawful Good tendencies.

What are Angels then? They're beings of pure goodness, who can never deliberately commit the slightest unnecessary evil act without being haunted by their actions forever. But don't imagine for a single moment that they define Good and Evil the way YOU scum define it. After all, there is a reason the Archangel Michael is depicted as carrying a big fucking sword, and it isn't because he's afraid of meeting demons everywhere he goes.

Now, I use the word "Angel" because it means, by definition, beings who are made out of pure goodness. And not because I want to pander to the psychotic religious freaks in the world. Angels exist, Gods do not! Or if they do, only evil gods exist. Being an Angel means being Good and being Good means being an Angel. It does NOT mean being obedient to nor worshipful of a god. AD&D got Angels totally wrong. But then, it also got gods totally wrong as every Angel possesses a Portfolio, something only gods possess in AD&D. Exhalted got Angels totally wrong too. Angels are not physically perfect beings (wings optional), they are psychologically perfect beings.

Furthermore, don't imagine that Angels in real life are the obedient emotionally castrated eunuchs of much of the psychotic hallucinations (religious "revelations" and "visions") of cattle. Angels are fully capable of hatred, fury and WRATH. Angels are not your friends. Angels are scary beings whom you, the NPCs, can rightly view as much scarier than monsters. And prostrating yourself or kowtowing isn't going to help. It is NEVER going to help but will only serve to draw attention to you. You know what might just help you? Running.

Batman Is Evil

Batman is evil. He isn't a rogue, he isn't a vigilante, he isn't a loose cannon. Far, far from it. He is Lawful Evil.

How many people have expressed contempt that superheroes with staggering mental, technological or supernatural powers waste their time "fighting crime" instead of helping humanity?

That isn't a coincidence. They fight crime because it's inoffensive. They fight crime because it's what the herd wants them to do. They fight crime because it's Lawful.

In other words, all those "superheroes" in comics are of Lawful alignment. But strict obedience to higher authority says NOTHING about whether a person is good or evil.

Once the two dimensions of character alignment are sharply and violently separated, it's possible to arrive at certain conclusions which would appear strange at first sight.

The typical scientist or bureaucrat is Lawful Neutral. The typical two-legged cattle is True Neutral. The typical protestor is Chaotic Neutral, caring absolutely nothing for good or evil. So far nothing terribly surprising, just insulting.

Then we have Hal Jordan in Emerald Twilight who tried to eradicate the Green Lantern Corps. Why?

Well, before his motivations were retconned, he had come to the realization that there WASN'T any justice in the universe and that the Corps may have stood for Order (Lawful) but it didn't stand for Justice (Good) therefore it had to be removed.

Hal Jordan was a Neutral Good character who joined up with a Lawful organization when it seemed Good and ruthlessly crushed them when he determined they had lied to him and that they were not so good. That they were despicably Lawful Neutral.

It's important to note that Hal Jordan's motivation was to resurrect his city because an evil had been done to IT. Not because an evil had been done to HIM. And that's the key fact we need to be able to judge Batman.

Batman is evil because his only motivation is HIMSELF. He fights crime because Gotham is a Chaotic Neutral City and because the criminals he fights are Chaotic Evil. Gotham's criminals are as antithetical to Batman as Neutral Evil is to Neutral Good.

The important point is that Batman's crime-fighting adventures have fuck-all to do with whether he is Good or Evil. Because they ONLY have any weight on whether Batman is Lawful (he is) or Chaotic (he hates that).

Now, Batman COULD HAVE BEEN Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral, but he isn't. He's a billionaire and you don't see him doing any good with his money. You see him being a playboy and selfish.

Batman's motivation for crime fighting was that his parents were murdered. Because an evil thing was done TO HIM. Not to others, but to himself. Selfish selfish!

And Christopher Nolan knows that Batman is evil because in the movie Batman Begins, Batman saves his sweetheart at the cost of millions in property damage.

Now, if Batman is the ultimate Lawful character, if his biggest motivation is Law, then how could he possibly commit millions of dollars of property damage for PERSONAL GAIN? Only if personal gain was as big a motivation could that make sense. But what that means is oh yeah, Batman Is Evil!!

And the only superhero to have ever been Neutral Good was swiftly balderized and his actions reinterpreted as a "fall".

Words Everybody Should Understand Which You Won't Find In A Dictionary

because dictionary writers are too fucking retarded to grasp them.

• polite = obedient to arbitrary social rules supposedly meant to promote niceness (in other words, someone too stupid to be nice on their own initiative)
• nice = helping others satisfy their desires in the immediate and instantaneous terms (in other words, someone too stupid to think long term)
• kind = helping others satisfy their desires in the long term (requires empathy)

• Morality = the rules of internal interaction which further the group's collective well-being (in other words, something cattle believe to be intrinsically good and which they are stupid enough to confuse with goodness itself). Or more simply, anti-Societal Catastrophe.
• Ethics = the rules of EXTERNAL interaction which further the group's collective well-being (ethics and morality both get more imperative as the targets of the rules get more inclusive. so as the group size grows for morality and as it SHRINKS for ethics)

• Justice = Morality + Ethics + Necessity + Convention. Or more simply, anti-Catastrophe.
• Fairness = social equality of opportunity.

• Honour = obedience to the values you were raised by (in other words, absolutely nothing to do with morality or ethics or goodness or even lawfulness)

• Courage = obedient reckless endangerment of one's own life at the say so of others, a form of passive suicide due to low self-esteem
• Ferocity = a specific emotion felt when consciously defending something at enormous cost to yourself, because it's worth it
• Bravery = courage + ferocity, said of doomed people who accept their fates

• Good = intrinsically valuable.
• Evil = intrinsically negatively valuable.
• Right = furthering a good.
• Wrong = furthering an evil.

• Lawful = obedient to higher authority. (higher authorities invariably consider lawful = good, and promote this view by praising all forms of obedience. even suicide, see courage. also honour, politeness.)
• Innocent = not disobedient to higher authority. (not Chaotic in AD&D terms)

• consideration = immediate, instantaneous empathy

• projection = persistently assuming that others have one's mental traits
• reversal = persistently assuming that one has others' mental traits (eg, this will hurt me more than it will hurt you)
• empathy = comprehension of others' values and emotions (see attunement, sympathy)
• consciousness (psychological) = comprehension of one's self, physical and mental
• consciousness (philosophical / phenomenological) = the subjective experience of physical existence. Responsible for suppressing self-fatal actions, NOT for initiating any actions nor decisions nor thoughts.
• attunement = sharing the emotions, values and thoughts of others

• commiseration = feeling a negative emotion because another person is feeling a negative emotion
• 'no such word in English' = feeling a positive emotion because another person is feeling a positive emotion (though compersion comes close)
• schadenfreude = feeling a positive emotion because another person is feeling a negative emotion

• sympathy = a specific kind of emotion, a less intense version of pity (in other words, has FUCK ALL to do with empathy, has everything to do with degrading others)
• pity = the specific emotion you feel when you believe someone is hopelessly incompetent
• charity = the self-righteous superiority that comes from helping others
• misery = a specific kind of highly intense negative emotion
• happiness = a specific kind of weak positive emotion (in other words, NOT a category of emotions anymore than NYC = USA)

• love = a high value (which idiots believe is an emotion somehow)
• passion = a still higher value

• willpower = appreciation of the discrepancy between one's own desires and others' desires; emotional discipline and empowerment feed into willpower but are not willpower

• extroverted = a person who values attunement
• introvert = not an extrovert (in other words, the default state!)

• analytic = possessing the capacity for instantaneous instinctive passive logic (less than half the population, related to Comprehension)
• synthetic = possessing the capacity for subconscious instinctive passive creativity (the only kind of creativity that matters, less than one tenth of the population, related to Understanding)
• judgement = analysis + synthesis (less than 5% of the population)
• free-thinker = a person capable and willing to exercise their own Judgement
• creative genius = the elite of free-thinkers
• religious = a form of retardation

• religion = a form of morality intermediate between universal human rights and tribal morality (the group is intermediate in size between everyone and the tribe)
• tribalism = the most depraved and degraded form of morality (in other words, held only by the most retarded people)
• clannish = deMause childrearing mode 4, so retarded as to not even qualify as a form of morality
• individual morality = a contradiction in terms

• suppressing = not feeling or acknowledging an emotion consciously (technical details omitted)

• neurotic = possessing overlearned (knee-jerk) emotional reactions
• psychotic = believing the hallucinations one experiences are real
• narcissistic = incapable of empathy
• psychopathic = incapable of empathy or planning
• sane = empathetic + rational

• Fascism = totalitarian authoritarianism (eg, USA Republican, French Front National)
• Conservatism = social inertia
• right-Liberalism aka Liberalism = factional democracy
• Social democracy = groupthink
• Communism = consensus democracy (with retards)
• Anarchism = statistically random democracy
• Environmentalism = human extinction advocates
• right-libertarian = slavery advocates (usually autistic)

• ideology = high strength of conviction = delusional thinking about the nature of reality by those too weak-willed to have principles
• idealism = high principles = fervent beliefs about how things OUGHT to be ... but aren't.
• vision = high willpower?
• freethinker = capable of independent Judgement, intellectual analytic-synthetic
• reasonable = incapable of independent thought or judgement, cattle, part of the hive-mind. Weak in willpower and mind.

• manipulation = to undermine someone's agency by causing them to unwittingly violate their own values, whether in appearance or in fact. bonus points if they never figure it out.

Advice to a Student of History

No doubt you've already read some of Ancient Engineers [at powells], History of Childhood, Political Consequences of Child Abuse, Origin of Consciousness, Athens: Government by Jury and Referendum, The Shadow of the Dalai Lama, Environmentalism 400 BC, The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race, How To Get Rich by Jared Diamond.

Or how the Boyar Russians managed to run a nation with complex trade relations with absolutely no money using sheer politics, how Egypt's welfare might be tied to the supplanting of its negative interest currency by the Romans, Mikhail Bakunin's predictions of red and black dictatorships arising which were borne out. And for fun, the fiction of Sylvia Volk. Whichever ones you've read, I highly recommend the others.

You will not have read about any of Deng Xiaoping, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Hugo Chavez Frias; Nestor Ivanovych Makhno, Douglas Engelbart; Sakichi Toyoda, Ricardo Semler. As you have no reason to suspect they are related. Their relation is that each of them tried (and often succeeded) in lifting an entire country up one step on the ladder of Tribal Feudal Industrial Networked society. That is, they tried singlehandedly to alter the history of an entire country in a permanent, irreversible and fundamental way.

No doubt you know that history is not a science as it offers no theories, only narrative. (Anthropology meanwhile is an anti-science.) Well, psychohistory is a science. And some of Jared Diamond's stuff almost qualifies. Economics, sociology, psychology and politics are sciences too, if dismal ones. You will not be able to guess that all of these sciences have as their foundation micro-psychology, in the same way as chemistry and astronomy are both founded on physics. Without micro-psychology, the driving force for progress in psychohistory theory seems random and doesn't really make sense.