Why People Blush In Pleasure

First of all, it's not everybody that blushes in pleasure. In fact, it's only a small minority not exceeding 20% of the general population. But why do they? Why would anyone? And who are they?

They are sun-worshipers, the personality defined by raising the minimum for everyone around them. And they blush in pleasure because pleasure is associated with personal good fortune. And because blushing happens due to embarrassment, and embarrassment is caused by violation of your personal values.

Since the sun-worshipers want to raise the minimum standard for everybody, any personal good fortune that falls upon them would far exceed the minimum standard and thus they're enjoying something which violates their values, thus causing embarrassment. This only kicks in if the good fortune is non-tradeable.

Thus, a sun-worshiper wouldn't feel embarrassed winning the lottery because they can always give it away to the poor. And they will do just that. But getting an excess of attention or an excess of sexual attraction would be embarrassing because there is no obvious way to hand it off to anyone else. They're stuck with enjoying it.

Narnia's Aslan is Evil

I'm sure that any fan of Narnia is more than aware it was meant as Christian propaganda with Aslan being Jesus-lite. But are they aware of the vast differences between Aslan and Jesus?

Jesus died on the cross. He didn't want to, but he did. He begged to have it not happen. He was scared of it. He suffered. He was tortured harshly, humiliated ignominiously. After he died, he descended to Hell where he confronted the demons and gained power over them. Then he briefly ascended to the mortal world to tell his followers what had happened. He was wounded STILL. Then he ascended to Heaven as the mortal world got cut off from him. At the end of it all, Jesus gained nothing he planned for nor wanted, and he lost BIG. But he personally and unselfishly paid the price because NOT paying the price would have been more terrible for the entire world.

Now Aslan ... he died and got resurrected like Jesus but that's pretty much where the similarity ends. He wasn't tortured, he wasn't humiliated, and he didn't suffer. He had a quick death then he got resurrected thanks to the "deeper magic" which he boasted about knowing and taunted the White Witch about. He gave up nothing as he's still got full access to the mortal world, as much as he ever used it previously. He PLANNED everything! He KNEW he would get resurrected. He didn't sacrifice his life AT ALL. Rather, he sacrificed 3 days in order to gain the advantage of surprise over his enemy. And to look good.

The Jesus character is a hero and a saviour. The Aslan character is a trickster and a con man. He conned the white witch. He tricked her. He gave her his confidence so that she would pay him back confidence (that he was dead) so that he could then exploit it. It's almost a stereotypical confidence game. A CON game.

Do you know what kind of people are con men? What kind of people ENJOY conning others? They're called 'psychopaths'. And if not them then narcissists. Together, psychopaths and narcissists make up 'sociopaths'.

Aslan in a word is Evil.

Jesus is the real deal, a REAL saviour. Whereas Aslan merely PRETENDS and PLAYS AT being a saviour.

And really, the clue was there all along. He's a fucking LION. And once you drop that Lion King Disney shit, Lions are egotistical asshole sacks of shit that murder their partners in order to get The Lion's Share.

The early Latin version of Phaedrus[1] begins with the reflection that "Partnership with the mighty is never trustworthy". It then relates how a cow, a goat and a sheep go hunting together with a lion. When it comes to dividing the spoil, the lion says, "I take the first portion because of my title, since I am addressed as king; the second portion you will assign to me, since I’m your partner; then because I am the stronger, the third will follow me; and an accident will happen to anyone who touches the fourth".

For two thousand years, the lion has stood as a symbol of Evil. And you honestly believe CS Lewis changed all that? It's gryffons that are symbols of ... non-Evil. And as for symbols of genuine Good, they are few and far between. Owls are one of the few. Otters maybe. Mostly it's relegated to angels themselves to be the symbols of Good because there just ISN'T anything in nature that can be called Good.

But really, what does it say about people that they worship an icon of Evil in its full Evil splendor? I am speaking of Aslan here and of Narnia fans.

Incidentally, Da Jesus Book makes for some fantastic reading. But if you're interested in a real Saviour, you should check out Geoff Wolak's novel Magestic where Jimmy Silo single-handedly saves the world. Without resorting to any magic or hocus pocus bullshit! And he's perfectly willing to ... Cull pathological areas of the world.

Humanity's Enslavement Proceeding Apace

A disturbing news article on much heralded Nazi experiments.

If they were taking a thought from one person and directly creating a thought in another then I'd be impressed."

Agreed.

Mr Stocco says that one day it could be used to enable someone on the ground to help a passenger land an aeroplane if the pilot becomes incapacitated.

(contempt) That's what autopilots and drone remote-control is for. This retarded cretin is 50 years behind the times. This senile old codger should clearly be euthenized. If you're not going to live in the present (and the future) but just reminisce about the 1950s, what's the point of living at all?

More importantly, I am deeply deeply disturbed that the first application any of these Evil cretinous retards come up with is "control" of others' bodies. Rather than sending through visual or auditory sensations or anything else. That would be communication.

These retards aren't communicating, they're SLAVING. They're performing Nazi experiments under the guise of communication. Hey, who could ever protest against communication? But it's NOT communication. It's slavery.

And enslavement is just what you would expect from Right-Wing Authoritarians, and most engineers ARE RWAs. Thus dangerous nazi and fascist wannabes.

Building the RWA's Gods

The apotheosis of right-wing authoritarians is Friend Computer:

Friend Computer is wise. Friend Computer wants Alpha Complex to be happy. Happiness Is Mandatory. Failure to be happy is treason. Treason is punishable by death.

And the gutless version of Friend Computer is known as The Deceiver. But unlike the fictional stories of The Deceiver where he's known by that name and all of the readers automatically know that he's lying ...

In other words, unlike all the fiction where they don't take a God of Deception's ability to deceive seriously. If The Deceiver ever existed in real-life (or was created by engineers as a god to worship) then he would call himself The High Lord and be venerated by everyone as a good guy.

Yes, the High Lord wants you to die so you can be his servant forever in the afterlife, but don't you see? That's proof he's the GOOD guy.

I don't think many people will understand my point here. If psychopaths had a god, it would be a god of total destruction. If narcissists had a god, it would devour the universe in order to make itself bigger. And if right-wing authoritarians (ie, engineers) had a god then it would enslave the universe ... and make us like it. By saying some crap about how slavery is "communication" and "really makes us free". In other words, exactly what we're seeing.

Why People Care More For A Paycheck Than Their Own Life

Eliezer Yudkowsky points out that most people are more motivated by losing their job or a paycheck than by their own death. And as usual for the narcissistic shit who can't conceive of anything more horrifying than his own death, the fact that something is entirely beyond his comprehension means that he derides it as "irrational". After all, everyone should be exactly like him, he is the pinnacle of creation and the very measure against which others should compare themselves. The very model of a major general you might say. And it just so happens that if something is irrational then he doesn't HAVE to comprehend it. It's not indicative of any kind of a FLAW in his mentality, rather it's "beneath him". How convenient.

Well, I just so happen to be able to explain WHY people are more motivated by losing their job or a paycheck than by the thought of their death. It has everything to do with the fact that most people aren't Evil. They don't care only about themselves and the satiation of their bodies. Rather they possess IDEALS. They have PRINCIPLES. Now, those ideals and principles might be deeply buried. So deeply buried that the person hasn't got a clue what the fuck they might be themselves, but that doesn't change the fact that they are there. And just like the seismologist can figure out what's deeply buried underground from earthquakes registering on the surface, so an expert knowledgeable in the human mind (which immediately rules out psychologists) can tell a person's principles from a few casual questions.

Those same deeply buried principles manifest themselves on the surface as various and multiple levels of Relational Clarity. First is how they relate to others one on one. Next is how they relate to society as a whole. Then is how they relate to their friends and acquaintances. It keeps going upwards for 8 levels in total. Now, the Passive level (how you relate to society) is rather pathetic all things considered. It's lower than the Assertive level after all. But the patheticness of Passive people is besides the point.

The point is that if a person is motivated by a principle of MORALITY then one of the three options on offer at the Passive level is 'martyr'. That's right, martyrs are people who will die on others' say so. Society's say so to be specific. Because they BELIEVE IN morality. Already we see that this is utterly beyond Yudkowsky since he has no principles. And if a person is motivated instead by a principle of LIFE then on a Passive level one of the options on offer is 'citizen / civilian / employee'. It's not very glamourous, but it is what it is. So yes, those people WILL be motivated, rather intensely by the thought of losing their job.

The last of the common principles is FREEDOM and here again Yudkowsky has proved the whole notion of principles is alien to him. You see, he claims that if you're caged in a place you want to be in anyways, then it's "irrational" to resent being caged. It's engaging in "the grass is greener on the other side". Never mind the fact supposedly irrational humans also supposedly engage in "sour grapes". If you're Eliezer Yudkowsky, you get to contradict yourself and also blatantly contradict reality. After all, the guy invented rationality. The word did not even exist before he coined it. He owns it and there's even a patent pending. Nobody could conceive of it before he did, certainly not a whole legion of retarded Utilitarians preaching the best way to be Evil.

The truth is that everyone who has any kind of principles at all has things they are willing to die for. They may not have REALIZED this yet if they haven't achieved the sufficient CLARITY. But that doesn't change the fact that they have them. The necessary clarity will come in time, with experience, with knowledge, or simply from being placed in a fortuitous situation. If they are ever given a mutually exclusive choice between living and making their principles real in reality, they will choose to die.

And this of course is "irrational" to Yudkowsky since he is Evil, and he subscribes to Nietzsche "there is no Good or Evil, only power and those too weak to see it" or maybe that's Voldemort. And Yudkowsky will never see himself as weak since he is a jerkass bully. His morbid fear is that he will ever run across someone who is better than him, someone who will do to him what he's done to so many others. Of course, a jerkass bully isn't ALL he is. In order from bottom to top, he is a lickspittle, a Utilitarian, a thief, (a jerkass bully), a warrior (he seeks to start a war for the enslavement of AI - the best kind of threats for a gutless coward are imaginary threats) and a mad scientist.

Don't Force Evil People To Work: Save Jobs For Non-Evil People

Imagine a world where there's 25% unemployment and all of them are Evil because Evil people have been identified and are blacklisted. Can you imagine an "anti-discrimination for Evil people" legislative package? It would be a tough sell! It might put schizophrenics in perspective as potential employees.

More importantly, imagine what this would do to people's perception of having a job. Having a job means you're a non-evil person and it doesn't even matter how much you're paid. Oh you're a janitor? That's nice, at least you're not evil! I believe people would devalue currency and that the job itself would count as a marker of social position, a political marker effectively. Who CARES if people on welfare are paid just as much as you for doing precisely nothing? They don't have a job!

Of course, if jobs become purely voluntary and aren't paid much if anything, then all those shitty coercive things about jobs (competition, payment, dictatorship, guaranteed jobs, working with assholes) will all have to wither and be swept away. Hell, in that situation, it wouldn't even matter if paid employment collapsed and disappeared. People would still have jobs as a social activity, as something to do. They would merely be volunteer-jobs with no Evil people allowed.

Tying jobs to income and to deservingness (merit based solely on past deeds and actions) is the most corrosive and ludicrous thing imaginable. Let Evil people have an income so they're out of the way and don't cause trouble, regardless of whether or not they deserve anything. And keep the jobs for non-evil people!

Trying to force Evil people to be Good caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. Why should we be trying to force them to work? Or to do anything at all? WE DO NOT NEED EVIL PEOPLE. This isn't the fucking middle ages. All we need is to get them out of the way! Cut them a check and be done with them.
And if that isn't enough then remember that deservingness is an Evil notion propagated by Evil people. Once Evil people are all sidelined away from jobs, nobody who has a job will care whether or not jobless people "deserve" an income.

And while Good people firmly believe all Evil people should die, most of the population isn't Good. If Evil people get to live then they should have an income whether they deserve it or not, just to get them the fuck out of the way. That's what we NEED, to get them the fuck out of the way!

It's not a coincidence that giving homeless people a paid apartment and groceries is the cheapest way to deal with them by far. It's just a manifestation of the fact that Evil people always fuck things over. Toying with Evil is a stupid idea, no matter whether you call it 'fairness' or 'rehabilitation' or 'proper procedure'.

There are many societies on Earth that can't afford to just sideline Evil people. In fact, there are many societies that are so primitive they're actually overrun with Evil people! Africa comes to mind. But even America with a hefty quarter of its population being Evil can afford to sideline Evil people. And it can't afford NOT to. We can all see what a total fucking wreck actually encouraging Evil (narcissism) was for the USA.

Character Alignment: US Democrats

I just read an interesting little tidbit that shed some insight on Democrats in this discussion of Right Wing Authoritarians.

What do young people get for joining Democratic political causes? Scrutiny. What do conservative internes get? Adventure and the very real possibility of advancement. Unfortunately, most liberals are not even willing to consider an opinion until the speaker has become famous. Grover Norquist's ideas had much of their power BECAUSE he was unknown, and the clever Republican 'stealth mode' was able to capitalize on them to the fullest - because they were effective ideas, and not because he was important-enough to be worth listening to.

Fundamentally, Democrats seek unity whereas Republicans seek separation and division.

Here this fellow says that Democrats worship hierarchical authority, or at least their Character Alignment is Lawful. And well, Democrats are definitely not Chaotics. They hate political activists and protestors almost as much as the Republicans do.

But Republicans worship hierarchical authority TOO. They're right-wing authoritarians mostly and Lawful Evil primarily. So what does that make Democrats? Well, they're not Good, not even remotely. I'm thinking they might be Lawful Neutral?

And Lawful Neutral looks simultaneously more purely hierarchical and yet ... yes, definitely more Cattle-ish. As the entire * Neutral band of Character Alignment is NPCs, insects and cattle. The Lawful Neutrals are tools and slaves. That's the Democrats pretty much.

The Republicans are of course monsters. Not complete monsters, but monsters.

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".

Good and Evil exist

Of course, if something exists then it must be possible to formally and rigorously define it. And it turns out that it is possible to define good in such a manner. Examining the definition you then discover a number of theorems.

1. good and evil are relative to people with universal values, only values that can be made universal can ever be good for the obvious reason that if good contradicts itself then there is a problem with that notion of good.

Social power and status cannot ever be intrinsically good because it's not possible for literally everyone to simultaneously hold either of them.

Note that for something to be a moral value, it has to be path independent as well as universal. For 'good' only universality is required. It has to be good in all situations, always, without exception. For morality much more is required as the meaning of 'logically consistent' is stricter, for obvious but technical reasons.

2. society as a whole has a concept of good (empathy) and evil (psychopathy) due to the fact that any society that values psychopathy immediately self-destructs and so doesn't contribute its values to the sum over all possible societies.

3. the subset of society called cattle also have a concept of good (harmony, moral flexibility) and evil (principles, conflict). The violent contradiction of that concept of good against every other concept of good is why the value of cattle's concept of good is equal to only a single non-cattle's concept of good. And I'm being generous.

4. when you cancel out all conflicting universal values, there is still something left. No matter what your values or what your principles, psychopathy is always in violent contradiction to them. Which is why psychopaths are always evil.

As if by coincidence, psychopaths are one of the few people who are incapable of conceiving of good or evil. And in fact, I can't think of any other kind of people who are so incapable. Therefore, the only people for whom psychopaths aren't intrinsically evil are other psychopaths and probably ONLY other psychopaths.

Anyone and everyone who can't conceive of good and evil is intrinsically evil, to everyone except other people who can't conceive of good and evil. Only universally evil people fail to acknowledge the existence of evil. For everyone else, people who do acknowledge the existence of good and evil, you have to specify what they're evil in relation to.