Nuclear Power Should Never Be A Popular Issue

You know, I'm not just well-read on nuclear issues, I'm also reasonably well-read on anti-nuclear activists.

So I can tell you that when anti-nuclear activists in Canada categorized the Canadian government's financing the construction of nuclear power plants in China as a multi-billion dollar "subsidy" instead of a LOAN to be paid back with interest ... that was entirely typical of anti-nuclear activists everywhere in the world.

How can that possibly be? Well, it's because the nuclear industry is one of a few major industry (eg, semiconductors), that is a genuinely modern industry. It could not possibly have existed in the past because no part of it is comprehensible to a non-analytic. EVERY part of it is HUGELY complex. Every ASPECT of it is hugely complex. There is nothing about it that is simple.

There is absolutely nothing about the nuclear industry that your typically mentally retarded zealot is even remotely capable of comprehending or understanding. Not one thing. And that is why everything which spews out of anti-nuclear advocates is a lie, a misdirection, or a misrepresentation of some kind. Without exception.

In fact, not even the 'iconic imagery' of nuclear power plants is accurate. Not even something as simple as that. Every journalist who wants to pass off a picture of a nuclear power plant looks for cooling towers. Only, coal plants have cooling towers too. Most power plants do. What identifies nuclear power plants are the containment buildings with their domes.

Non-analytics and non-experts in the field literally couldn't get a single thing right.

Did you know that the steel pipes in a nuclear power plant, the ones that transmit high pressure high temperature steam, aren't even steel? :D They're metal and they're an alloy, but they're not principally made out of iron. They're made out of nickel - hasteloy. Or the cheap ones are just internally lined with hasteloy but you can't exactly dismiss the lining as unimportant because it's what makes the pipes work. Even something that simple. And it's so across the board.

Nuclear power should NEVER be a popular issue because the vast majority of the population is totally incapable of understanding or comprehending any aspect or component of its operation. Nuclear power is one of those wondrous areas where human civilization has completely outstripped its pathetic magical-thinking forebears. It probably won't surprise you to find out that the French nuclear union is explicitly communist.

Come to think of it, that's WHY zealots hate nuclear power so much. Because literally no part of it is comprehensible to them. Because it's a monument to their idiocy.

Nuclear Industry Needs More Accidents To Prosper

Nuclear accidents are a bad thing? A terrifying or worrisome thing?

(scoff) Yeah right. I've got news for you, supertankers cause oil spills, coal plants kill a million people each and every year in Western Europe! Hydroelectric dams break, causing enormous deadly floods. And oil refineries blow up too. And guess what? That's ALSO "simply damage we can't undo yet". But the difference is that nobody expects them to! EVER. But nuclear? It's so fucking clean that you almost realistically expect it to be 100.000% clean. What a fucking joke!

No industrial activity will EVER be totally clean. Absolutely NOTHING in physical reality CAN be. Worse comes to worse, protons decay! Enough eons pass and you've got a small but non-zero chance of a micro-black hole forming by quantum tunneling and destroying something. Everything dies, all things. Everything comes to dust. But nuclear? You seriously expect it to be ETERNAL. Because it's the power of the GODS! Talk about unrealistic expectations.

The truth is this. If a Chernobyl happened each and every year, it wouldn't be a big deal. How many people died from those two incidents? 50-something? It beats the million people who are dying from air pollution in Europe each and every year.

I'm not an apologist for the nuclear industry because I think it's got nothing to apologize for. As far as I'm concerned, we should have MORE nuclear accidents because then people would get fucking used to them! But no, realistically, Fukushima is the last nuclear accident that's gonna happen in the next century. Fucking crap.

The Economic Benefits Of Personal Computers

Some people (engineers and fascists, not that those two terms aren't almost synonymous) have difficulty grasping that modern personal computers have vastly increased productivity of individuals. They say correctly that big mainframes greatly helped the record-keeping of large corporations. And that smaller computers helped the lesser record-keeping of smaller corporations. And that's it, because individuals can't possibly be doing any record-keeping.

These people also get greatly upset over computer games and other modern "distractions" and are dismissive of the fact these things are more enriching and valuable than other equally mindless age-old pastimes of chatting over the water cooler, being brainwashed by the idiot box, square dancing, and bobbing for apples. Never mind those, age-old means traditional and there can't possibly be anything wrong with that! In fact, when people aren't slaving for a corporation they should just go to bed like the good slaves they are.

Never mind the benefits of automation. The order clerks that don't have to be paid for because web sites are processing their orders. The large retail warehouses (not a new phenomenon) where order pickers are aided by autonomous robots. The ATM machines everywhere. The self-checkout machines. Being able to do your banking and taxes online with the aid of software. No, we're not going to go into those. It's not like they greatly benefit individuals and the economy and are aided by small computers.

No, we will here talk about individual record-keeping. Because individuals DO in fact keep records. These are called "notes". And in the bad old days which the engineers are conveniently forgetting, individuals had to keep records ANYWAYS. They were just on this thing called "paper" which had no search functionality, random or fast lookup. In the bad old days, people used these things called "index cards" as meta-records. They were shit! In the bad old days, people did linear searches through all of their records instead of using 'grep' or 'google'.

People DID have records in the bad old days, and they DID engage in record-keeping. But in the bad old days, even though you could write at as much as 1/10th the speed of typing, getting writer's cramp a hundred times faster than RSI (and infinitely faster if you're smart enough to switch to Dvorak keymap and/or get a Kinesis keyboard). Hmm, a 10-fold productivity improvement you say? Nay! Because in the bad old days, retrieval of records was so difficult it was prohibitively expensive. Yea, in the bad old days, in order to be able to maintain any kind of records, you needed very high intelligence to remember where your records were.

And nowadays ... intelligence no longer matters. You want to remember something? Type it up. If you're moderately organized, you'll be able to remember it. So that nowadays, it's possible for someone to function with as low as 2 slots in working memory when people normally have 4, in other words at less than 50% capacity. You know those times when your head is fuzzy and you're braindead? Well, it's actually possible to measure numerically how far your mental capacity has gone down. And it no longer matters. Because you can still do productive work ... with your cybernetic memory.

Thanks to personal computers, everyone now has an IQ of roughly 150. An enormous boost to personal productivity and the economy. Sure, people aren't any more logical than they ever used to be, and they aren't any more creative than they used to be. But in terms of raw intelligence, raw memorization ability, the boost provided by computers is phenomenal!

Of course, none of that matters as individuals cannot possibly matter to slaves or insects. Which is what the typical engineer is.

And to think, this is all without the computer / Internet revolution having happened yet. Because it still hasn't. For all that you morons believe it's taken the world by storm, it is barely inching its way through the world. It still hasn't happened in any meaningful way as cybernetic memory (or dirt cheap social organization provided by the Internet) is nothing compared to what's coming.

Speaking of dirt cheap social organization provided by the Internet. That was pioneered by people illicitly sharing porn and movies. It took over two decades for business finance to move to take advantage of it. So no wonder fascists and engineers, to whom only corporations and governments could possibly matter, would be utterly blind to the phenomenon. After all, it's not like dirt cheap porn brings any value to anyone's life. Certainly not to someone who takes seriously the notion of sexual abstinence for adolescents.

Power-Hunger Is Great

... so long as it's not from Evil people.

Power hunger is directly proportional to dissatisfaction with life. Or something like that. And since I consider this world Hell, I love it when people have their eyes wide open and see the world for the shithole it is. Power-hungry people who want to change this shithole for the better are my kind of people.

There is nothing evil about Power, it's a simple necessity to get nearly anything you want out of life. It's not like fame or freedom, which ARE evil. Fame being intrinsically evil and freedom being sought by apathetic people who are content letting others suffer. And money? Money IS power!

It's too bad that power is mostly sought by Evil assholes who want power for its own sake. Not to DO anything with it but merely to enjoy its possession. That too is evil because it deprives Good people of power. It deprives Good people of the ability to do Good things.

So power is great. The things that ordinary people say are better or less controversial than power? THOSE are the evil things. And like all great things, Evil people want to coopt and steal it.

I suppose it's like Heroism and Courage, which are also bad and evil, and all too frequently coopted by Evil people and Evil societies. So there's a lot of precedent.

Neurodiversity: Why Eco-Zealots Should All Be Killed

Eco-zealots talk a lot about "biodiversity" like it's something wonderful. All those wonderful diseases and parasites that kill human beings, yeah! Well, let's talk about neurodiversity for a moment.

Culture Is More Complex

There are fewer than 100,000 genes in the human genome. There are 800,000 words in the English language. There are a mere 3 billion base pairs in the human genome. There are over 100 billion neurons in the human brain, each with an average of 7000 synapses, for a total of 700 trillion synapses.

(You believed DNA coded for your personality? Well, it's clear from the evidence that isn't the case. For those rare people who have distinctive personalities, the personality came about as the result of random chance. For the vast majority who don't, their personality was injected into their brains by those around them.)

Oh but you're going to say that human genes recombine to form a vastly greater number of proteins? Funny that, but concepts recombine to form ideas and English words combine and recombine into English sentences. The proteins combine into organelles, cells, organs and bodies. The sentences combine into calculations, instructions, artifacts, industrial processes and economies.

(Concepts are not "memes" by the way and ideas aren't digital! So-called "memetics" has nothing intelligent or meaningful to say about ideas, culture or society, that wasn't said better earlier. In fact, the central premise of "memetics", that all ideas have intrinsic value to the brains that hold them, that the brain doesn't treat conceptualization and valuation independently let alone completely separately ... this premise is FALSE and a LIE!)

Culture Is More Rapid

Cultural evolution is vastly more rapid (and powerful!) than mere biological evolution. After all, biological evolution can't give rise to an entirely new species in a single generation. Cultural evolution has given rise to an entirely new society in a single generation! Not just once but repeatedly, over and over and over again.

Think of the de-Nazification of Germany, think of the Chinese Revolution, the Cultural Revolution, the rise of Marxist Communism, the French Revolution, Quebec's Quiet Revolution. The Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, the Sexual Revolution, the computer revolution, the railroad age, the telecomm age, the information age, the rise of robotics, the rise of genomics!

Culture Is More Powerful

Now let's talk power for a minute. How many bacteria live out in open space? None, zero, zilch, nothing. And yet there is a thriving colony of satellites operating out in space right now. How many life forms tunnel through solid rock? None! And yet Tunnel Boring Machines routinely do, right now. How many life forms span a single kilometer in length? None! Not even Pando comes close! Yet transoceanic fiber optic cables routinely span thousands of kilometers!

How many species divert raging rivers? None! Yet we routinely build hydroelectric dams. How many years did it take all life on Earth to alter the composition of its atmosphere? Two billion. How many years did it take culture to do it? We still have a thousand years to go before the 10,000 mark is reached, and that's from the very genesis of culture, not even the birth of the Industrial Age.

How much mass has the biosphere? 600 billion tonnes of carbon after 3 to 4 billion years. And that is all it will EVER amount to. How much mass has the technosphere? 5 billion tonnes of steel and cement being added to it just last year. And we've barely even started! Culture levels mountains and drains seas, literally. Biology ... just fucking sits there like a cadaver, completely inanimate.

Culture Is Vastly More Valuable

Getting back to the point, it is clear to anyone that is not completely brainless and/or lost in mindless hatred for humanity, that a single human life is more precious than en entire species of cute furry little creatures. One starving street urchin in Rio de Janeiro is worth ... pandas. If it were a choice between that street kid's life and the extinction of a species, any species, I wouldn't hesitate to go for extinction. And I wouldn't stop to poll how other people FEEL, I would just fucking do it.

There are an estimated 9 million species on the Earth. So ALL of the Earth's biodiversity is worth little more than the human population of Papua New Guinea. And I fucking despise those infanticidal cannibalistic savages! Eco-zealots are complaining how humanity is causing mass extinctions? How thousands of species are dying every minute? Well it's a total lie, but even if it were true, I would only have this to say: GOOD!

You say that biodiversity is important to the survival of humanity? That "it's all about habitability"? That "sustainability" (stagnation) is enviable? LIES! Mono-cultured grains, orchards and plantations are fully capable of feeding humanity, which as per the proofs above is ALL that matters. And very soon, thanks to our technological evolution!, we won't even need those as we'll be eating vat meat or synthesized protein. Culture will make it so we won't need nature within a thousand years, whereas if it were left up to nature, we would all be extinct within the next hundred thousand years.

The human population of the Earth is 7 billion. Its worth, neglecting for the moment that some of those humans' lives are worth a billion times others', is completely unchanged by the extinction of homo sapiens as a biological species. If the entire human population suddenly became AIs and homo sapiens became extinct, the value lost by homo sapiens' extinction would be recouped after all of 6 seconds, during which 2 babies would be born and 3 people would die.

Eco-Zealots Are Worth Less Than Nothing

But as I said, not all human lives are equal in value. If eco-zealots believe that their own lives are worth LESS than a biological species' continued existence, I am quite willing to oblige them. In fact, I would go even further and say that they are worthless and all ought to die. After all, since an entire species' genome is numerically worth less than one hundred-thousandth of a single human brain, it follows that an eco-zealot's life (equal to a species' only) is worth only one hundred thousandth of an ordinary human life.

And that's not all! Because THEIR lives are inimical to the continued prosperity of the human species. because THEY want "nature" to thrive at the expense of human lives, it follows then that eco-zealots ought to be treated like any other human virus inimical to human life, and eradicated from the face of the Earth with extreme prejudice. Let me be blunt: every single last eco-zealots ought to be shot in the head and killed. Because the filthy hateful words spewing out of their mouths constitute hate crimes deserving of capital punishment!

So-called "environmentalists" and "climate researchers" are literally as valuable to humanity as HIV and should be treated the same way. With prophylactics and plenty of serious research aimed at creating a vaccine against them. Eradication wouldn't be amiss either.

Japanese Are As Despicable As English

I believed Japanese childrearing was stuck in mode 4 of the deMause childrearing modes, but until just now, I didn't have any evidence to prove it. Well, now I do. It only took reading a few Naruto fanfics too so I'm getting better. Because Naruto harkens back to what we in the civilized world (which excludes the UK, USA and now Japan) would call a bygone age where everyone owes their entire lives to the clan and clans are everything.

Naruto can only be loyal to Konoha because his own family is completely dead, so all of Konoha is his clan. And as it's his clan and he's in mode 4, he must be absolutely loyal to it. He can have no personal ambitions outside of his clan. That's why he wants to be Hokage, because being head of the clan is the ultimate ambition, as nothing exists outside the clan. And that's why the missing-nin are traitors instead of adventurers and freethinkers and individualists.

When you really think about it, it's quite sick. And that's why nobody but Japanese can buy into it. Everyone with a smattering of a brain writes Naruto fanfic in a subtly off-canon way. And those capable of genuinely thinking for themselves often construct a premise that completely derails and blows up the Japanese obsessions with clan and village, that force the protagonists to grow up in a non-Japanese way.

The best part is this. I thought the UK were bad? Oh man, the Japanese are worse! The English are 4+ or mid-4, as they don't generally whip their children into unconsciousness like the Austrians did when Adolf Hitler grew up. But you can tell the Japs are worse despite their children's fiction being roughly the same because the Japanese in real life destroy all remnants of creativity and individuality in their children.

The high tech, more functional and communal nature of Japanese society as opposed to the broken psychopathic nature of the English doesn't make up for their explicitly suppressing individuation in toddlers. Man I hate the Island Apes on both sides of Eurasia. The English are the Whiny Traitors Of Europe. And the stupid fucking Japs are all but begging China or Korea to nuke them.

The Germans moved on from being 4- back when they were Nazis. They leaped straight to 6- and are still taking lessons from the 6+ Scandinavian societies around them. So the Germans might be a tad weaker economically than the Japs, but politically? They are infinitely better. The Germans became best friends with the French, they're not trying to alienate and provoke their nuclear-armed neighbours like the Japs.

Japanese are insane fucks and in their own non-violent incestuous way, they are just as bad as the parents of Germany's Nazi generation.

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.

Applying Logic to Harry Potter

one learns that

• Hermione Granger is autistic - it's why she's incapable of Judgement, like that mind-wiping her parents is EVIL
• HG married Ron (the Peter Pettigrew of the trio) because her love for authority + a Nazi regime that wants to kill her led to crushingly low self-esteem - a desperation move for a girl who thinks she has nothing to look forward to in life
• Lockhart wasn't really a narcissist, he was a psychopath
• Ronald is a narcissist, a Lickspittle and Hedonist to be specific
• Mrs Figg is a turncoat who sold out to the Dursleys for money and/or to backstab Dumbles. The alternatives are that Dumbledore is Evil, or that what the Dursleys did isn't considered abuse in the Whizzy world.
• transfiguration and conjuration are fake - just holograms and forcefields
• and Whizzes are too stupid to understand that! - JKR just wrote random crap and it's totally by accident that it's self-consistent so it's not like she could explain her magic system.
• Hogwarts Houses are cults with charismatic leaders - it's no coincidence that between the two Gryffs on staff, only one is charismatic and the other is his minion - see how far into AU you have to go to make Hogwarts a premiere institution of learning (also portrays a living breathing Wizarding World)
• the Whizzes' intention-based system of magic robs them of the capacity for common sense and logic, reducing them to wishful thinking - save us, save us, someone save us! - magic is BAD!
• the Whizzy world's talking creatures and magical potions (to say nothing of Hags, Werewolves and Vampires) strongly encourages psychopathy - stewing magical creatures "as soon as they reach sexual maturity"? Uhuh.
• the Pissers stay in the Whizzy world either due to copious use of Compulsions or Shared Insanity - their brains can no longer manage the rudimentary logic even the mentally deficient non-magicals can do - what else can explain the lack of illegal smuggling of artifacts for money? Or the pathetic threadbare pastiche of a society and culture that is the Whizzy World? Like anyone liking Quidditch!
• the Wand warped Dumbles' brain making him batshit crazy to the point where he was fostering Dark Lords just so they'd kill him, or he them. HP and the Prophecy were always an obstacle to Dumbles' insane plans for glory.
• Dumbles was probably an artificial narcissist
• Dumbles completely brainwashed HP and may have put his own horcrux into HP to resurrect himself in HP's body - Albus Severus Potter? WTF?
• if not that then HP has fully assimilated the 'child abuse is a good thing!' philosophy of JKR and tortures his first born
• the Stone creates Sirens that lure the Stone's user to his or her death - HP's "parents" were fake
• the Cloak curses its user into insignificance, possibly a desire for insignificance, and apathy towards meeting Death
• the most important character in the series is Death: since He manages to wipe out both HP and Dumble. Yay!

messages that JKR sends

• child abuse is normal - the only okay parents (Hermione's and Draco's) are mythological and/or really Evil
• racism is great! - "muggle" even sounds like "ugly"
• concentration camps and genocide are swell - just good old boys acting out, forgive and forget she says!
• you'll go far on luck and self-sacrifice - in fact, that's the ONLY way to advance.
• anger is the only possible form of emotional depth and as such the only possible proof you aren't a psychopath, everyone who isn't angry is Evil. Only exception: Cedric, whom we don't see much of at all.
• the best government is no government, yay for patriarchal feudalism!
• the Clan Leader (Grandfather Dumbles) is owed Fealty unto death
• it's really okay to abandon your kids (the Potters, Black, Dumbles with Harry, Dumbles with every student, Lupin) - I'm sure JKR wished it every day
• child services are horrors, oops "aurors".
• children should be gone and good riddance - most of the students could have been day students and it would made no difference except to make the lack of extracurriculars more realistic!
• you CAN throw random crap together and write a book ... so long as you don't give a shit what message it sends!

Want to hear of the Nazi lessons in The Never Ending Story? Because that book WAS written by one of the parents-of-Nazis who raised the Nazi generation to be what they are. It makes you wonder, doesn't it? And then you stop wondering and become disgusted when you hear of the rampant child sacrifice and child abuse (imagination is a bad thing! bad!!) in Fantasia.

Credits: Publicola and Diresquirrel on FFN. Mr Ragtop on FFN (the asshole got in a snit and erased his account). Some are mine.

See also Bravery Is Evil, .

Profile of an Autistic

Some autistics can be creative in an abstract way but since abstract creativity is rare in the general population, we aren't going to talk about that here. We're going to talk about an abstractly uncreative autistic, and show what it means for them to be concretely uncreative as well.

I've already explained in this blog how there are four fundamental cognitive traits. Of those, intelligence (memorization) and intellectualism are irrelevant here. Which leaves only analysis (passive logic) and synthesis (unforced creativity), which compose together to form Judgement (meta-level reasoning). Autism is a severe cognitive deficiency of synthesis which cripples Judgement.

Incidentally, I find it utterly laughable how conceited some Asperger sufferers are when they claim that their mental deficiency is an evolutionary advantage of some kind in our modern world. It is not, it's a form of retardation and an evolutionary dead-end.

HERMIONE GRANGER

Now, let's take a look at our autistic, shall we?

HG is logical and intelligent, but she is even more uncreative than the least creative normal person (the definition of autism), she's obsessed with rules and memorization, she's incapable of judgement. Like maybe what the house elves say they want is more important than what she herself thinks they want!!

Hermione has been raised and indoctrinated with a certain code of interactional conduct (which people misleadingly call "morality", the same way they say New York when they mean USA). She is incapable of looking at the raw data of house elves' behaviour, their stated wants, and their proven needs, and deriving from that an entirely NEW code of interactional conduct logically appropriate to house elves.

Hermione imposes her own code of interactional conduct on a completely different and alien species of sophonts (what fools call "sapients" thanks to Star Trek despite the fact domestic cats are sapient) from her own species, not because she projects her own insecurities and neuroses on others, but because she's as creative as a stone!

She is literally incapable of coming up with an alternative idea, let alone a whole entire system of ideas. And being logical she is unwilling to accept that the pissers in the Whizzy world are right because those same pissers say she's a second class citizen and/or ought to die. And how, logically, can it be possible for her to be a second class citizen when she is "the greatest witch in her generation" according to one of the Whizzes?

Hermione is utterly incapable of creating new categories. If she were told to sort the words "train, car, fruit, and cake" she would come up with the categories "method of transportation" and "food" only because those categories ALREADY EXIST in her mind, having been put there by someone else (a textbook's author, a professor, her parents). If she didn't know those categories beforehand, she would be unable to create them.

This is why she is capable of understanding Dark Magic versus Light Magic. Or Charms vs Transfiguration. But she is incapable of creating the category 'Technomany spells' because it doesn't already exist! The same for "blatantly underused spells" or "blatantly underpowered spells" or "spells that really should be legal but are not".

Hermione isn't some creative genius. She never put any food in that bag of hers. And her conception of original is to use a shoulder bag rather than a backpack or a mokeskin pouch or a trunk. What most people would consider a trivial derivation.

HOW AUTISM CRIPPLES HERMIONE'S OWN LIFE

The reason why Hermione marries Ron Weasley of all people ... has to be explained. Especially since it isn't that she's a born victim like HP. Her inability to form judgements from raw data ... does explain it. She's unable to conclude from "lazy, slob, anti-intellectual, angry, jealous, prejudiced, bigoted, violent, hair-trigger temper" that Ron Weasley would make a terrible husband and especially a terrible husband for HER.

Because that's an example of taking raw data and creating a conclusion out of it on the META-level.

Unless you've gone to a spousal abuse worshop where they will carefully spoonfeed the profile of the typical spousal abuser into your brain, you have to actually create the pattern out of the raw data of common stories (gossip) of spousal abuse. This takes Synthesis which Hermione doesn't have. Though IFF she DID know that Ron Weasley were a spousal abuser just like his mother, she would then be able to logic that he makes a bad prospective husband.

Hermione can use logic to come to conclusions on the same level as the data. So conclusions like "Ron Weasley's personality traits are all undesirable" are possible for her. As are things like math. But she can't come to conclusions on the meta-level, the level of abstraction ABOVE that. "Ron Weasley would be a terrible husband" is impossible for her.

She's capable of extrapolating from the present to a specific future. But not from the present to the entire space of possible futures. So she is incapable of testing the boundaries of that space in her mind. She is also incapable of extrapolating from one specific idea to the space of all ideas. Or any of the many, many kinds of meta-level jumps which normal people routinely do and which creative geniuses do as easily as breathing.

INCAPABLE OF GRASPING THE BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS

Other examples of meta-level thinking which HG is incapable of deriving from level thinking are: WANT from IS, and SHOULD from WANT. HG is incapable of figuring out what she wants out of life, for example, beyond what people tell her. She is an important person (because people tell her so), important people go to the Ministry (because people tell her so), therefore, she goes to the Ministry (logic).

Hermione is so mentally crippled that she's even incapable of creating a rule for whom to believe from the contradictory things people tell her. The rule she has adopted (higher authority wins) is simply what everyone has always told her. She didn't create that rule nor even choose to adopt it from a set of alternatives. She's practically incapable of doing what most people consider genuine thinking, relying on rote memorization and regurgitation.

As a worst case, HG will marry RW and never figure out that she's unhappy in that marriage or didn't want it. She HAS a marriage and no basis from which to conclude that she doesn't WANT it (eg, she's always yelled at RW so yelling is normal behaviour hence unremarkable, rather than tiresome or draining). And even if she were capable of figuring that out, it would require yet another impossible leap of cognition for her to conclude she SHOULD NOT have married him at all, rather than that she made an "honest mistake".

Unless of course someone in authority tells her this. And then she'll whine that they didn't tell her earlier! And then that person will look at her puzzled by her obvious mental deficiency when she is so "smart".

In canon, HG is incapable of figuring out that mind-wiping her parents is a bad thing. It isn't a crime after all. It isn't something anyone has explicitly TOLD HER is bad nor can that conclusion be derived using pure logic from other things she knows are crimes. It would require synthesis (the creation of a new concept, a new pattern for pattern-matching purposes) to conclude that mind-wiping is bad.

WHERE AUTISM FITS IN

As a result of her mental deficiency, Hermione Granger's brain is incapable of spontaneously forming core values, and so her mind is unable to ascend cognitive valuation meta-levels.

META-LEVELS OF COGNITIVE VALUATION - psych-emotional maturity

• 0. infant (senses) -- you learn to feel and perceive
• 1. toddler (rules) -- you learn to act
• 2. child (hypotheticals) -- you learn to plan
• 3. juvenile (agents) -- you learn to emote
• 4. adult (cost-benefit) -- you learn to manage your desires
• 5. celestial (core values) -- you organize your mind

Where psychopaths are stuck at #1 and narcissists are stuck at #2, definitively, uncreative autistics are perhaps stuck at level #3. I know for a certainty that autistics can't ascend to level #5 no matter how logical they are, but I also have serious doubts they ever get to #4.

Besides, it makes sense. Theoretically, there HAS to be some form of cognitive deficiency which gets people stuck on #3. #2 as I said is narcissism. #4 ... is normal people. Whom I variously call insects and cattle and NPCs, depending on what personality trait I want to emphasize and how scornful I am of that personality trait. So that leaves only #3.

The only question really is whether creative autistics can climb higher. And answerinng that question is equivalent to defining in exact detail exactly what concrete creativity is. IFF cognitive valuation is concrete then autistics (lacking it) can't climb higher than #3. IFF cognitive valuation is abstract then abstractly creative autistics can climb higher than #3.

Climb, ascend, grow up. Different words for the same thing.

CONCLUSION

Hermione Granger is mentally handicapped. Because autism really is a mental handicap, of the cognitive kind specifically. She is incapable of forming judgements about abstract things (eg, house elf rights), or things she observes in her own life (eg, RW is a terrible prospective husband), or even about her own person (eg, suckups to higher authority are scorned for a reason, she herself is mentally handicapped, she has a horrible marriage, her life sucks and she's miserable).

Oh yeah, only people possessed of Core Values are Good People, because Core Values ARE a person's independent conception of Goodness. Since different people can possess different sets of Core Values it follows that Goodness is Chromatic. It occurs in colours, and never in black and white. The fact that you NPCs all think Good and Evil is Black and White is sufficient proof that you don't understand Good. And solid evidence that you're incapable of ever understanding it.

Hermione Granger, being an uncreative autistic, is incapable of ever being a Good person. Her being selflessly fucked up and mentally retarded doesn't make her Good. It merely makes her Lawful. She is Lawful Neutral.

Gamers Are Lame

I recently discovered that gamers who aren't game designers are exceedingly lame. And I realized that the reason I'm not a gamer is simply because I'm not that lame, and because all the games ever made, all the games anyone could make, will always be lame.

There are damned few games where you get to alter the game world. The only ones I know are Minecraft, Second Life and the old MOOs (I consider Second Life a 3D MOO). And of course, the Reality MMORPG (that one's manual is really inadequate by the way).

In World of Warcraft, you don't get to change the outcome of anything at all. Things move around randomly, events happen, and you don't have any say in them. Only an unreachable deity (the Content Programmer) has any say in it at all.

In Dragon Age, Neverwinter Nights and other computer role-playing games, you get a choice of a tiny number (usually 3 or less) "endings" which are barely distinguishable. You win and become evil, you win and become good, you lose and die, so on. There isn't any possible way to get off these plot rails you're stuck on.

And aren't you happy with 3 or 4 destinations? Like I said, I'm not that lame. And although in Minecraft and possibly Dungeon Keeper, you get to craft worlds, you only get to do so on a very superficial level. Like a freaking engineer! I look down on engineers, I don't want to emulate them!

So anyways, how did I learn all this? Well, I read a couple of self-insert fics about computer games. It took me a while to figure out their authors were uncreative hacks who were novelizing the games. Cause yeah, I don't play computer games, I just read about them. And then I started wondering what the fuck was wrong with these people.

And I realized! They're cattle and insects. They don't think of anything beyond their own self-aggrandizement. The "sandbox" in Elder Scrolls where you get to acquire power, prestige (social status), and fortune (wealth) is all they could ever want.

None of them ever want to REMAKE the world, putting down railways and signal towers to keep the Tamriel Empire together. None of them want to build aqueducts, public baths and radically improve coal mining to heat the baths in Athkatla.

I suppose Civilization and Railroad Tycoon let you do that to a small degree. But they were crap, because you got bogged down in repetitive micro-management pretty damned quick. And they were over-simplistic. What you could build was exceedingly limited. The plot rails may have been conceptual but they were still there.

My favourite genre of fiction has always been crossovers with reality. And the first question that always comes to mind is what the trade opportunities would be. I think this rant kinda shows that. Healing potions for steam engines, hmm. Steam engines are nearly always possible so long as something resembling human life lives.

Revealing Language

PROGRESS VS SURVIVAL

Fascists and fascism apologists talk about making sacrifices in order to "secure" survival. Not in order to survive but to "secure" it. What does that mean? Well, it means that they make these sacrifices in order to FEEL SECURE. And what is change and progress and growth if not threats to the feeling of security and stability? In other words, fascism apologists aren't really sacrificing anything. Not for themselves. Rather, they are sacrificing YOUR progress and growth, and YOUR desire for justice ... for the sake of THEIR feelings of security.

Because there is no empirical data whatsoever, and copious counter-examples disproving the notion, that survival and progress are incompatible in any circumstance. There are plenty of revolutions that advanced social progress FIRST in order to ensure survival LATER. China comes to mind. France comes to mind. It is only in the minds of would be Fascists that survival is somehow more important than progress. Because in their minds, progress really doesn't matter in the first place, because progress is NEGATIVE in their minds. When as a matter of empirical fact, progress is NECESSARY for survival.

(Simple example: if we don't progress technologically then in a few million years, an asteroid or super-volcano is going to annihilate the human species. Because Nature is just plain evil like that. Of course, that doesn't stop people from worshiping an evil nature in the least, any more than it stops people from worshiping the evil Jehovah. Or Batman. People seem to just like worshiping Evil.)

The would be fascists will claim that survival while not necessarily more important than progress is nonetheless more urgent. But how can it possibly be more urgent when progress is often a logical prerequisite of survival? Ahh, that's right, for a moment I forgot that most people are incapable of logic. And so by being incapable of logic, their perceptions and their actions are effectively fascistic. Wonderful!

HELPING POVERTY

"Helping" poverty is another good one. These people are doing nothing to END poverty. They rather believe ending poverty is impossible. It's why they rarely say "helping end poverty", although some do. I would go so far to say as they don't even believe they are helping poor people, not really. Else why don't they say "helping people in poverty" or "helping poor people"?

No, what they are doing is perpetuating poverty, helping poverty to exist. By papering over it and making it palatable to others, especially to the middle class and the poor, they try to prevent a revolution or other definitive actions that would actually eradicate poverty. I know that if I had a goal it would be to end poverty or eradicate poverty. It would certainly not be "helping" it. It takes some special kind of fucked up person to want to help poverty. But then, there is no shortage of evil-minded retards among the general population. It seems rather that's the overwhelming majority of them.

And if you believe otherwise then I have but a simple question for you: if people really believed that it were desirable to reduce or end poverty, then why would they make not a single goal towards that end? The fact that people are insects does not explain why their hive-mind hasn't come up with a single idea to reduce or end poverty. The fact the overwhelming majority of insects are cattle following the herd who are ultimately following freethinkers, doesn't explain why the freethinkers didn't lead the cattle towards reducing poverty or perhaps why the cattle didn't glom onto reducing poverty as a goal. The only thing that explains the fact of near-universal apathy towards poverty is this ... people like poverty.

The Value Of Knowledge

I have encountered twice the erroneous belief that knowledge is somehow important, let alone important for psychological growth and self-knowledge. This ridiculous notion must be uprooted as it is ludicrously false. It is a simple matter of economics, but first I will deal with another misconception, omnipresent amongst the idiots studying psychology and AI. That emotions somehow matter and are the root of personality.

EMOTIONS

Emotions are trivial and meaningless. They are instantly changeable using the Emotional Disciplines I have invented. Not like pathetic Buddhist meditation or Kolinahr where some neutral emotion like tranquility or calm is targeted and great efforts are made to achieve it. No, using the Emotional Disciplines it is trivial to cancel any emotion within 6 seconds AND you can also SUMMON any emotion within 6 seconds. It doesn't even take any real practice, all it takes is knowing exactly how to do it.

Now, if emotions are completely unimportant then why would one's reactions to various situations be important? Why would one's memories be important to one's self?

KNOWLEDGE

Getting back on track now, there are 800,000 words in the English language. Say that 10^5 = 100,000 are concepts, and there are (10^10) possible ideas (agglutinations of concepts). You can see the combinatorial explosion starting. Well, among the 100,000 possible concepts, there are maybe 10,000 that can be universalized as core values. So that's 10^4 possible core values, out of which an Angel will typically have *SIX* for their whole entire lives. I myself hold exactly TEN, being a total freak of nature and far more passionate and caring than others.

Those 6-10 core values determine HALF of your personality and 97% or so of its individuality. A SINGLE core value determines MORE THAN 5% of your personality. Think about that. And now compare it to individual bits of knowledge which has a TOTAL weight upwards of 10^10 so that a single idea has a weight only of 10^-10! Upwards of 5% compared to less than one tenth of a billionth. Core values versus knowledge. There is no contest.

Knowledge just doesn't matter.

META-LEVELS

And then of course there is the argument from meta-levels. If you do not know what meta-levels are, you should look it up. Suffice to say that higher is better. That transcendance is meta-meta-leveling. And that the higher you go, the more leverage you can have.

Knowing the value of 3.14159 is less valuable than knowing it's the ratio of a circle to its circumference, which is itself less valuable than knowing that it exists as an important mathematical constant called pi. Knowing how to work the political system is less valuable than knowing how to change the political system is less valuable than knowing how to abolish it in preference for a completely different political system.

Similarly for IS versus OUGHT. There is what is. There is what you want or desire (although those are misnomers for low-level values as 'want' and 'desire' are specific emotions thus insignificant). And then there is what OUGHT to be (high level values - core values).

IN REAL LIFE

The way this manifests in practice is thus, you can divide your life horizontally between intellectual, work and personal. And you can divide it up vertically between lower and higher:

intellectual: knowledge about the world and knowledge ABOUT knowledge (about how to acquire knowledge, about how to determine what knowledge you require, about what knowledge is valuable, about what knowledge you ought to have).

work: doing something to get paid and be financially sound versus doing meaningful work to effect a change in the world.

personal: knowing your desires, thoughts & hobbies versus knowing your Core Values, your mind, & Life Dreams. HAVING Life Dreams. Knowing how to discover and produce them systematically and at will. Being an insect versus being a giant (and knowing not to imitate insects).

interpersonal: having friends versus having the kinds of friends that will make you happy and a better person besides, growing and furthering those relationships, strengthening and broadening those bonds, learning how to do all this, learning how to pick great friends.

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.

Why Interest Rates Are Artificial And Should Be Abolished

I've never seen an explanation of where interest rates actually come from, or why they should be abolished, before. These things are always just assumed, the latter with stamp scrip, and the former with "time preference of money" which is irrational and I don't share at all. Here it's clearly stated why interest rates are artificial and evil. They are a natural product of human atavistic greed over a totally artificial product, one that is completely out of touch with everything in physical reality. With the sole exception of land, which is something humans don't create. The paragraph in that page serves as a complete and thorough denunciation of the entire field of economics. If economists are so evil and corrupt that they won't denounce interest rates, let alone work to eradicate them, then what possible value can they have as academics? Lynch the lying fuckers, all of them.

Realistic Starships Are Tubes

Out in space, there are two requirements that determine the physical shape of a starship.

The first is heat management, by which I mean dumping heat to keep a starship from overheating. Any kind of drive, even an external drive, will produce a vast amount of heat. And unfortunately, vacuum is an excellent insulator. Also, the temperature of space in Earth orbit is 394 Kelvin (120 Celsius) when exposed to the sun so that line about "space" being cold is just lying crap.

Parenthetically, it's amazing how much lying crap one has to dig through in order to find that number, 394 Kelvin. Cryptic imbeciles who think they're elite engineers do a song and dance because they believe ordinary people are incapable of grasping that it will be cooler than 394 K in the shade. Give me a fucking break.

The second requirement is shielding from radiation and micrometeorites. Isaac Kuo came up with an ingenious way of shielding a starship using only known and existing technology. The idea is to exploit the high velocity of a starship to annihilate everything in its way instead of letting the high velocity work against the starship.

You do this by continuously misting water in front of the starship so the droplets disintegrate everything in their way. After objects are disintegrated down to elementary particles, and conveniently ionized, it's a simple matter to almost instantly sweep them out of the way using an electromagnetic field. Particle accelerators do that all the time.

A 1 milliliter droplet of water going at 99% of light speed hits with the force of 31 tonnes of TNT. One tonne of water going at 99% of light speed hits with the force of 31 megatonnes of TNT. The most powerful nuclear bomb ever made had a yield of only 50 megatons (45 megatonnes).

Now, everyone knows the shape of electromagnetic fields, and most people can figure out from looking at a diagram of an electromagnet that the center of the electromagnet is unshielded. There are no field lines going through the exact center of any kind of magnet or electromagnet. They all cancel out there, so it's unprotected.

So if we want to maximize the amount of shielded volume in our starship, we're going to pick some kind of torus. Right away that looks very different from pretty much every depiction of starships in science fiction. But that's not all.

You can increase the volume of the starship without increasing its cross-section in its direction of travel (ie, what has to be shielded) by elongating it. And by some marvelous coincidence, when the starship is inside a solar system and in danger of getting crispy fried by its sun, that small cross-section also helps, as all you need to do is orient the starship towards the sun.

Incidentally, elongating the starship is also the answer to radiator fins. If you need radiator fins at all, then the best place to put them is down the long axis of the starship, probably in the middle. You put them anywhere else and they're likely to get ripped off. Also, radiator fins that don't catch sunlight are a really good idea.

It's unfortunate that you need strong structural supports to keep the front and back sections of the starships together with the radiator fins in between. Those structural supports have mass and so increase the size of the drive necessary to push the starship. But I can see no way of avoiding this ... unless the misting system is very lightweight. Which it very well might be.

Well, there you have the best possible shape for a starship. It looks like a tube. And if you don't need it to turn at all, better yet if you want to avoid it turning at all costs, then you just spin it. The gyroscopic forces will keep it steady. This also happens to generate gravity, not that computers and AI will ever care about gravity except as a bad thing to avoid at all costs.

And if you're thinking of Babylon 5 or other pathetic space operas where starships spin to generate gravity, you can get that right out of your mind. As a result of the spinning, any such starship is incapable of turning without tearing itself apart. Which is the same reason flywheels can't be used to store energy in automobiles.

No, if a starship ever spins, it's because it's expected to never, ever need to turn for any reason. So it's a good thing interstellar war is flatly impossible, isn't it? What with every space civilization deploying giant space mirrors to fry any incoming enemy vessels, and light up cities at night and during winter.

Starships can never wage war on each other or on any planets like they do in science fiction. Starships can't move like they do in science fiction. And starships can't even look like they do in science fiction. You see, science fiction is pretty much totally fucking useless. It's a wonder that people consider it to expand the mind.

I think the only worthwhile science fiction on television was probably Star Trek and Alien Nation. And that's because both explored the boundaries of humanity rather than get mired in the muck and the past.