Prototype Theory of Language Is Wrong

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

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

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

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

Order is strict arrangement. To order is to command.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Superman Is Evil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gods Exist

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

What Gods Aren't

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

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

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

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

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

What Gods Are

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

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

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

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

Modern Gods

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing In Nature Is Good

Narcissistic Dog

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

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

Symbols

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

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

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

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

Evidence

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

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

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

Cats

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

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

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

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

Nature As A Whole

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perfect Opposite of Life, Anyone? Annealing? Equity?

After all this time, I still don't know what abstract concept is the perfect opposite of Life. Assuming there even is one, which I kind of doubt.

Opposites are NOT obvious, because they require PERFECT understanding of a concept. And even that may not be enough.

What's the opposite of Morality? Not immorality! It's Societal Catastrophe. What's the opposite of Justice? Catastrophe. Really simple and obvious if pointed out to you. Impenetrable otherwise.

What's the opposite of Equity? I don't know. In fact, I don't really understand Equity. Not by my conception of Understanding anyways. If anyone knowns the opposite of Equity ...

Annealing means 'general optimization'. In that sense, I do have a perfect understanding of it. But I'm still not sure what its opposite is. Dislocations? Defects? Discontinuities? What is the abstract concept that encompasses all three?

Life

The formal definition of life tells us Life has three sub-concepts:

• using energy
• enough complexity
• maintains internal order

The first one of those is a simple concept with no opposite. The other two are both complex concepts with opposites.

Now, if you invert say uses energy, then you have stasis pods and hibernation. Whereas if you invert just maintains internal order then you've got death. But either way that's 1.0 out of 2.5 inversions.

If you invert uses energy and maintains internal order then you've got undeath. Which is 1.5 out of 2.5 inversions.

If you invert maintains internal order and complexity, then you've got pathology. That's 2.0 out of 2.5 inversions.

But if you invert ALL THREE ... what the fuck do you get?

Creativity

If Monotony is the opposite of Stimulation, then what's the opposite of Creativity?

The formal definition of creativity is something along the lines of 'sudden compression of living representation' if this helps any.

Pure Ideas

Consider these explorations of concept-space for those interested in playing at the Pure Ideas meta-level of Perspective. The most rigorous and formal part of philosophy which philosophers are blind to and overwhelmingly incapable of. No mere philosophy this. Yet far more necessary for mental development than the sum total of all philosophy.

Narcissists Organize Reality by Selfdom

So all the words I used previously for the Narcissists' driving value turned out to be Presence level bound. Glory, Big Man, attention-seeking, these are all specific to particular Presence levels so they are ALL ruled out.

It took a LOT of thinking and then looking it up in a thesaurus, but the only word that ACTUALLY describes what narcissists are driven by, their driving value, is:

Selfdom - the realm of the self, the self as a kingdom

the opposite of this would be depersonification and depersonalization. Insignificance and nothingness come very close to that. But much closer come *ANY* universalizable principles. Universalization itself comes closer to depersonification than insignificance ever could.

If core values are Good then Narcissists are the very EMBODIMENT of Evil. They are not Neutral Evil by accident, by standing between Psychopaths and RWAs. They don't happen to be Evil. They are its most perfect embodiment. Of the exact opposite of Selflessness, Altruism and Mirroring.

Selfdom.

Holy shit.

Oh did I forget to mention that the Table of Drives for Narcissists includes 'politician' at the Passive level? Yeah, that old joke about politicians being pure Evil? Not a joke.

Condemning The True Meaning of Christmas

Ahh, suicide season has come upon us and now everyone is stupidly pondering the meaning of Christmas. Which is stupidly obvious if you bother to think about it: your self-worth comes from your family and you need them to put up with you and confirm you have it otherwise you are worthless. Therefore, if you don't have a family, say because you told them to go fuck themselves because they're Nazis, and you choose not to breed because you won't settle for less than immortal AI children, then you don't have any self-worth and you should kill yourself.

Funny how everyone (Evil) insists that Christmas is positive without any darker and wholly negative flipside. It's as if they assume everyone in the world is as retarded as they are and nobody is capable of simple logic! Nobody is capable of calculating that if family is positive then lack of family must be negative. But I digress. Of course societies which culturally target Evil as some kind of social and psychological ideal assume that everyone's mentally retarded (ie, Evil) and that no one is capable of logic.

There's just a WEE thing wrong with the whole "meaning of Christmas" and it is this: who the fuck gives a damn about self-worth? To be precise: what kind of person obsesses over self-worth? And what does 'worth' even mean? Surprisingly, these turn out to have the same answer.

Incidentally, I hope by now you expect vastly more from me than some feel-good shite or fuzzy useless "philosophical" tripe. I will be rigorous. Behold,

generic names for manifestation of one's values by Presence Level

unoriented valuation	pospolar valuation	negpolar valuation	if holed
Partobject	safe	committed	transcendental
Pairbond	loved	cherished	schizoid
Subcomponent	WORTHY, esteemed	appreciated	RAD
Submissive	useful	validated	insensitive
Passive	valued	righteous	lost
Assertive	meaningful	vital	hypocrite
Forceful	constructive	wrathful	?manic
Lordly	productive	radical	?borderline
Majestic	purposeful	epic	?borderline
Imperious	omnipotent	omnipresent
Godly	incarnation	force of nature	n/a

So let's just say that worth, worthiness, even self-worth, is distinctly unimpressive. And in this day and age, it's also distinctly subpar. Because nowadays most people manage to be valued and a minority even manages to lead meaningful lives. Leading a worthy life is exceedingly pathetic. It is also passé and obsolete. Why, nowadays ambitious people aim to lead productive lives.

So what is the true meaning of Christmas? It's OBSOLETE. There ISN'T ANY POINT TO IT. It's a relic of a bygone age that should never be celebrated and instead be done away with. The only holiday I celebrate is the only one that has any meaning to me. Ascension Day on January 14-16. Actually two other days are worth celebrating but I don't know what July 22nd is called, and I can't date Resurrection Day.

Yes, I just used the word 'worth' about something in my life, and I used it advisedly. Because I unlike all of you do not say that something has worth to me simply because it is mine. I say it has worth because it manifests value at higher levels. And even you pathetic wretches can manage to assign worth to things because they are useful and valuable. I have made worth redundant.

Edit: Actually, worth doesn't even belong in this table at all. It's in a specialized table that describes NARCISSISTS! It's in between protected and precious, and is a kind of noteworthy. No wonder I ... just don't care about it. At all. And that I reuse the word to refer to completely different things. Using it to refer to myself sounds ludicrous and alien.

More importantly, this means Christmas IS EVIL!

Multiple Personalities Disorder of BTVS Characters

The thing about knowing how the human mind is put together is that you begin to spot when a character isn't "complex" but rather has a logically impossible personality. Something that can only be resolved by multiple personalities disorder, if at all.

Take Xander Harris in BTVS. He's a white knight and a genuine hero. That makes him a Gaian of reasonably high Presence. Logically, he should have the lower Presence levels of Gaian. In particular, he should be a grey man who fits in with any situation without ever standing out, like Clark Kent. And he should be a survivor willing to cut the throat of anyone, anyone at all, in order to LIVE!

Instead, he's the exact OPPOSITE of a grey man and a survivor. But that at least can be explained by him being a blatant fucking hypocrite. A person who has ideals and principles and imposes those ideals and principles on OTHERS but NEVER ON HIMSELF. Yes, that works as an explanation, the scum sucking son of a bitch!

But no such explanation is possible for Willow who in the very first episode is a hacker (psychopath!). She goes on to becoming a traitor (psychopath) and is ever amoral (psychopath) and reckless (psychopath). And she's quite the eager little cultist (psychopath). And that's WITHOUT looking at what she does hopped up on "dark magic". She's not schizoid either but a straight out psychopath.

Problem is, she's also loyal overall (not a sociopath of any kind) and she is very, very much obedient to authority figures (right-wing authoritarian or moralist) and an eager little drone (moralist) and yes man (moralist) and adjutant / teacher's assistant (right-wing authoritarian). And there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that can make those personality types fit together.

In fact, those personality types can't fit together IN THE SAME ROOM. The moment you have knives available anywhere in that room, one of them will try to stab the other. And if there aren't any knives, they'll make a shiv. The weaker (mentally) the characters, the longer it will take for their minds to turn to thoughts of killing the other. But it will happen, inevitably.

You might as well ask Batman (right-wing authoritarian) to get along with the freaking Joker (psychopath). Oh except you wouldn't because the idea is totally fucking ridiculous! Similarly, put them in the same room ... as kids with undeveloped personalities, and you'd still expect sparks to fly.

So when an author writes 'shy little Willow' as a gutless backstabbing psychopath uncaring of anyone's feelings who wants to enslave, mind control and humiliate her "best friend" Buffy Summers, they're not exactly breathing fresh air into the character. They're just writing her far more consistently than the psychopath Joss Whedon ever managed to. And picking her dominant personality to boot.

And giving that egotistical selfish heartless narcissistic little bitch Buffy Summers exactly what she deserves. Because if there were any justice in the world then psychopaths would all be killed and narcissists would all be sold as sex slaves. It's not just what the Good people of the world want ... it's what the Evil people want too!

And not just because Evil people hate other Evil people, although they do. They really, really do. But because psychopaths don't care about consequences even to themselves, so they DON'T CARE if they go to prison or end up dead for doing something. They CAN'T CARE because not caring about consequences is WHAT MAKES THEM PSYCHOPATHS. And what makes them dangerous too.

Meanwhile, narcissists actually WANT to be sex slaves. They FANTASIZE about it. Who the fuck do you think writes all those semi-exhibitionistic pro-humiliation self-abasing sex slave stories? That's right, their authors are narcissists. And they are so not because they necessarily want to be the center of the universe, but because they firmly believe that *A* person ought to be the center of the universe.

Meanwhile, right-wing authoritarians are perfectly fine with homo sapiens getting slaughtered like cattle or other homo sapiens being sold as slaves, sexual or otherwise. It's a time honoured tradition!! 99% of human societies throughout 99% of human history had slavery and genocide. Even to this day, we STILL have slavery and genocide out in black Africa. What could possibly be wrong with something so NORMAL!?

Note that right-wing authoritarians are perfectly fine with killing each other so long as it's done across ethnic or national lines. Really, killing Evil people isn't a problem for ANY Evil person. Though preferably, it's other Evil people that are going to die if they get their way. Evil people will put their lives on the line to kill other Evil people.

The only people who want Evil people to be treated like human beings (and psychopaths AREN'T human beings, they're mindless animals who've accidentally mastered the trick of human speech, and I can prove this!) is Neutrals. Because being neither Evil nor categorical mortal enemies of Evil (render Evil unto Evil!), they don't have an instinctive grasp of what Evil *IS*.

Finally, when you've shown that the world could be improved by targeted mass killings and enslavement, this constitutes powerful evidence that the world is as fucked up as it can possibly get. Something I've known to be true for a long time now.

Information vs Entropy

What is the difference between information and entropy?

Nobody will tell you because as usual the scientific community is made up of inept worthless morons so THEY. DON'T. KNOW. In fact, they will tell you that information and entropy are synonyms despite the fact that they are never used interchangeably but rather are opposites.

Just like the "learned" philosophers will tell you that ethics and morality are synonymous despite their never being used interchangeably and often as complements to each other. Entropic shit-spewers, the whole lot of them, with only single-digit exceptions!

Well, I will tell you. Because I am not a douchebag driven to hide how much he doesn't know to maintain "credibility". Nor am I a douchebag driven to build up and cryptify what he knows in order to build up "credibility" amongst a crypto-priesthood of like-minded "brothers"..

What It Is

bits + ISA = information

bits - ISA = entropy.

What is ISA? ISA is INFORMATIONAL SYNTAX AFFINITY. It's basically, THE INFORMATION YOU LIKE. That's right bitches! The difference between information and entropy is subjective! Something they barely let on in communication theory when they start talking about signal vs noise. Something they LIE ABOUT in thermodynamics when they claim it's about microstates vs macrostates!

What It Isn't

Physicists claim that the motion of aluminum atoms in your hard drive are microstates, and that the arrangements of aluminum atoms in your hard drive that correspond to 0s and 1s which your computer reads are macrostates. And, this is the important bit, they claim that the microstates are garbage (entropy) whereas the macrostates are useful (information). In other words, physicists claim that the difference between entropy and information is the META-LEVEL you're interested in. THEY ARE LYING!

Counter-example: how many of you have garbage files on your computer? Ancient ZIP files, corrupt files that can't be played, duplicate and truncated textfiles, automated log files nobody ever looks at, useless "temporary" files that have accumulated, porn you never bother to look at any more, bookmarks you never go to? How many of you have entire FOLDERS' worth of that crap?

And yet this ALL OCCURS AT THE SAME LEVEL AS THE USEFUL FILES! Proving that the distinction between information and entropy has NOTHING to do with meta-levels. But actually, we'll get back to this because the retards were more wrong than could be imagined.

Building Blocks Of The Universe

Some, and I stress, some exceptional physicists have grasped that bits are one of the fundamental building blocks of the universe. The other building blocks are energy and dimension. Although dimension may, MAY, be optional if you successfully reduce it down to ... bits!

Are there other fundamental building blocks of the universe? Why, yes there are! These are all of them,

• 0. math = symbols + rules
• 1. energy, the substrate of physical existence
• 2. dimension, a kind of information, maybe
• 3. information, symbols given physical existence
• 4. value, meta-circular loops

Note how time isn't in there. That's because time is just a dimension along which information is conserved. That's it. And since time isn't fundamental and computation is just 'math occurring in time' ... but I digress.

The unfamiliar building block of the universe in there is 'value'. Which is nonetheless startlingly familiar to anyone who's skimmed GED: The Eternal Golden Braid. I say skimmed since that book was useless to anyone. Meandering, winding and always avoiding making its fucking point! Probably because its authors were too stupid to put their point into the kind of rigor which mathematicians prefer and they were afraid of looking stupid. Credibility is the death-knell of science.

Value

Now, I already said that information is intrinsically subjective. You need something like brains to have information at all. But you actually don't. You need neither brains nor computation nor time to have information. What you DO need is a container with bits in it and for those bits to form meta-circular loops. In other words, for the bits to talk about what the other bits look like!

When a container chock full of bits is ALSO chock-full of meta-circular loops, then the space of possible information is vastly decreased. When that happens, the bits in the container can be COMPRESSED. And when bits are compressed that's the same thing as if they didn't exist. Look it up, information theory says this most explicitly.

So, the more meta-circular loops there are or the stronger the loops are in the container (the more fully they describe the container's bits) the more VALUE is in a container full of bits, the fewer bits there actually are. And ISA is a very primitive form of value because it refers to what a computation machine such as a brain likes in terms of bits on a purely syntactic level.

That is, what it likes to see in terms of density and spatial arrangement of bits. Does this brain like for the container to be about half-full of 1s? Almost completely full of 1s? Almost completely full of 0s? Should those 1s and 0s move in time or not? Should they ...? That's ISA.

Information And Entropy Are Opposites

Bits + ISA = Bits + Value = Bits + more compression = Fewer actual bits = Information

Bits - ISA = Bits - Value = Bits + zero compression = Maximum actual bits = Entropy

And *THAT* children is why Information and Entropy ARE FUCKING OPPOSITES!

Because while "information" theory and computation theory and physics all talk about BITS ... they never, EVER talk about information OR entropy. Because the concepts of information and entropy exist ABOVE the level of bits. And because scientists and academic researchers are TOO FUCKING UNCREATIVE to synthesize concepts above the level they're working on. Being worthless stupid idiotic hacks.

Information and entropy REALLY ARE opposites and academics are simply too stupid to understand the concepts so they MISUSE the words informatino AND entropy to refer to ... BITS.

What Is Chaos?

This was a message to Alara Rogers, an author who spends an inordinate amount of time thinking about and defending chaos.

In physics, information == entropy. That's because the only difference between information and entropy is SUBJECTIVE and so is beyond physics. In fact, the difference between information and entropy is something I call Informational Syntax Affinity.

ISA is basically what brains, whose reason for existence is to organize entropy, happen to like at a very shallow level and in a very superficial manner. And it's different for different people, along a multi-dimensional spectrum. So what some people consider information, others consider entropy.

For example, a friend of mine finds fantasy and science fiction almost impossible to understand. Because she can't get into it. And the reason she can't get into it is because she can't imagine herself in those situations, because they aren't real, and she can't imagine learning anything meaningful from them. So to her it's just noise. And it's very difficult to understand noise.

Another example, there's a song a friend recommended to me which she enjoys greatly. Only the song was torture to my ears and caused me to instinctively rip my headphones right off my head a minute into it. Because the information / entropy in it had the same syntax (the same overall shape) as pain. It didn't CAUSE pain, it WAS pain. Just audio-pain rather than tactile-pain.

Why are some people masochists? Because the sensory signals of temperature and pressure which touch transmits happen to be ones their brain likes. Because their ISA is satisfied by intense rigid space-filling signals. It's nothing more complicated than that.

There is no INTRINSIC reason why anyone hates pain or has an aversion to it, it's just that pain is a very unusual kind of signal and fits very few people's ISA. All that's necessary for ... extreme signals to be painful to nearly everybody is for ISA to be distributed randomly in the population.

Now, I already said that brains' jobs is to ORGANIZE entropy. And that's true. And surprisingly, even though ISA is hardwired, brains DO NOT organize entropy around ISA. Except for Psychopaths who are more or less animals with animal minds. And should all be put to death as mockeries of human beings. But I digress.

Brains look for PRINCIPLES along which to organize entropy. Those principles take the form of VALUES.

Now, some brains prefer organizing entropy so that the environment has overall very low entropy. Moralists like Jean Luc Picard are like that. But so are Right-Wing Authoritarians like Hitler. The big difference is that Hitler's brain was itself chock full of entropy (he was a brain-damaged psychotic hallucinating retard) so his brain didn't take into account all reality when it picked what principles should be used to organize entropy. Basically, he did a bad job of it.

People whose brains aren't completely retarded pick UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES to use for performing their brain's function of organizing entropy. Principles that can be applied simultaneously to EVERYONE without logical contradiction. So for instance, if you picked "the universe should be organized around my whims and I should be most important and have all the attention" this can't be made universal. But if you pick "everyone should always be truthful" this CAN be made universal.

There are lots and LOTS of those universal organizing principles to pick from. But there are some very common ones that recur and that are more important because they dig deeper into reality. Something that's critical but highly technical so it is its own lecture.

Now, Picard as a Moralist has a brain that likes very, very low levels of entropy. He also has a brain that functions adequately, not anything stellar but not retarded. Which means that he DOES have a universal organizing principle (Morality = anti-Catastrophe = anti-very-high-entropy).

In temperature terms, Picard's brain is warm (neither hot nor cold) and he wants the environment to be crystalline with near-zero friction. Whereas right-wing authoritarians have brains that are molten magma and they want their environment to be polycrystalline (crystals with many defects) with high friction (they actually find friction desirable). And Marxists have brains that are cryogenic and they want their environment to be a super-solid. A superconducting crystal with zero viscosity or friction.

Now, on the other side of the spectrum are brains that tolerate and prefer much higher levels of entropy. You've got the Anarcho-Communists whose brains are cryogenic and they want their environment to be a super-fluid with zero viscosity. Then you've got your Annealers whose brains are warm and they want their environment to be a liquid. And then you've got your Psychopaths whose brains are hot plasma and they want their environment to become burning plasma.

Annealing is a universal principle. It means 'global optimization'. In order to anneal metal, it has to be warm. It CAN'T be hot enough to melt, let alone vaporize, let alone ionize the way the psychopaths want it. But it also CAN'T be cold and crystalline the way Moralists want it. Crystallization is death to Annealers. It is ossification.

And critically important, if you look at a system that has been annealed, it would at first glance look extremely entropic, extremely disorganized. Until you looked at the meta-level, at the SPACE OF POSSIBLE STATES of the system, then you would instantly see that the system is at the lowest possible point in that phase space, that it is actually HIGHLY organized.

So what is chaos? Chaos is Anarcho-Communists and Annealers. Chaos is what's produced by brains that like moderate amounts of entropy, but they like (and are able to make) their entropy VERY HIGHLY ORGANIZED.

Chaos is a meta-state of matter associated with 'warm but solid'.

Energy simply has nothing to do with what entropy or information is. Except for the fact that in the material universe, energy is the substrate of 'physical existence'. If something has no energy then it has no physical existence. For information to exist, it has to have energy to carry it. If information were the bits in your hard drive then energy would be the hard drive itself. It's simply what carries information. But energy is not information and has nothing to do with what information is about.

Rather, if you want to get the full story of information, beyond high entropy vs low entropy, then you must throw in COMPUTATION. Which means, BRAINS. Computation is intrinsic to information theory. Energy ... not so much. And chaos is the kind of entropy that a particular class of brains likes very, very much.

Marital Decline Will Reverse Itself Within 50 Years

There's two ways to predict the future. The first is to really understand the present and the second is to make the future happen. Let's start with the first.

Why is marriage declining? To understand it, you need to know two facts. First, CHILDLESS marriages are breaking up. Marriages with children aren't breaking up so much, at least until the children are grown.

Second, poverty is going down and wealth is going up. Which means people have more opportunities and more freedom. And with this comes mental freedom. One of the four indicators of mental development has gone up.

It used to be that all people cared about, literally all they cared about, and all they could AFFORD to care about, was their family and their workplace. And NOTHING ELSE.

Nowadays, people can afford a great deal more principle. Even maids and servants are perfectly comfortable changing employers. They're no longer operating on the Subcomponent level, but on the Submissive level.

Where before, a maid or servant was a part of their master's household FOR LIFE, nowadays they're not part of the household period, and are just hired for the duration. They'll be the maid or servant of someone completely different in 3 or 7 years' time.

When you put those two facts together, the fact that people are having fewer children, that children STILL matter, and that people are growing mentally ... you come to the conclusion that marriages are breaking up because people have more principles now and simply *can't stand* each other.

Why should a Communist tolerate a Nazi? They would have in the past. Nowadays, it's not that the proportion of communists and nazis has gone down at all. If anything, it's gone up. Rather, they can nowadays afford to hate each other's guts, and they've grown enough to WANT to hate each other's guts.

So how will society develop? How will marriage develop in the future? It's pretty fucking obvious. People will adjust by pre-filtering their spouses looking for people they can stand rather than relying strictly on looks and sexual attraction. And doing this will entirely reverse the decline of marriage.

The only point that requires my expert judgement to address is the time horizon this will occur on. And in my expert judgement, I give it 50 years.

Finally, how do I know that marriage won't dissolve or mutate into something unrecognizable? Easy. Because human brains will always, ALWAYS operate on the PairBond level in conjunction with any other levels they operate on. Because EVEN AI will operate on the PairBond level. Because the PairBond level is one of the 11 meta-levels that can be formally and rigorously defined using OOSA. And while this is more than enough to anyone who's seen the math, there is the separate fact that mathematics doesn't allow stable solutions to the man-woman-dog matching problem. In other words, because math says so!

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.

Reactions To REAL Creative Genius

It annoys me that idiots continue to use "oh wow, that's so amazing" as the measure of creative genius. Or even worse, that they rely on society's direction to determine who is a creative genius and who isn't.

Narcissists Vs Society

First of all, creative geniuses are RESPECTED and LOOKED UP TO by society. And any position that is looked up to will be coveted by Narcissists who are driven by Glory, such as Richard Feynman who all his life was driven to be a jerkass asshole and a thief. And Narcissism is a form of severe brain damage and profound mental retardation.

So if you're using society's direction to determine who's a creative genius, then you're almost certain to include some profoundly mentally retarded people in your list just because those people will do anything, literally ANYTHING, to try to snow society about their status.

Some of those things will even work ... because society is made up of idiots ... like you. But then so long as society is ruled by idiots then only idiots will take the direction of society in anything. The fact you take the direction of society for who's a creative genius or not means you're an idiot. And idiots get easily lied to and taken advantage of.

Society as run by RWAs

For calibration purposes, the stereotypical (American) engineer is profoundly retarded so is an idiot but also far beyond an idiot. Engineers are most pronounced in taking the direction of society and as we'll see, implying that real creative genius (the kind that's forever beyond society's ability to evaluate) simply cannot exist.

I find these beliefs of theirs particularly objectionable, but they are typical of the engineering mindset. The typical engineer is a Right-Wing Authoritarian aka Corrupt Moralist aka Evil Moralist. They blatantly misuse and give a bad name to the word 'Morality' when they really just mean Social Norms.

The typical engineer is a Nazi just waiting to happen. Or would be if Nazism weren't proscribed by the social norms they grew up with. The typical engineer will find a novel way to enslave people since they deem slavery to be maximally desirable. So long as it's not called slavery and isn't one of the very long list of slaver-technologies which have been proscribed by modern social norms.

Society respects these people. Psychologists even have a term for "Evil person who isn't a right-wing authoritarian", it's 'sociopath'. As if it were perfectly permissible and even HEALTHY to be a right-wing authoritarian! YOU respect these people. YOU respect society. YOU respect psychologists. That's all the proof I need that you're a fucking idiot.

Incidentally, because RWAs are driven by Social Norms, it follows immediately that a freakish phenomenon such as creative genius is either profoundly undesirable or simply cannot exist. The more low-brow RWAs who openly advocate fascist ideology believe creative genius is undesirable. The more high-brow like engineers believe that it simply cannot exist. But if you prove that it exists, they'll claim it's undesirable.

Reactions

Moving on, the correct reaction to a creative genius' creative genius pronouncements isn't "oh wow, that's so amazing". No, the correct reaction is a blank stare of incomprehension. Because a creative genius doesn't operate above you, a creative genius operates on a level that is forever beyond you.

-

reaction of ordinary person	names per Disposition	description
hmmm, that sounds about right	investigator / researcher / teacher
heh, that would be nice	idealist / dreamer / freethinker
oh wow, that's so amazing, I could never come up with it	pioneer / innovator / inventor	creates something original and valuable
damn, that's so obvious now	explorer / pathbreaker / trailblazer	does something COMPLEX
blank stare of incomprehension	visionary / creative genius / father of (knowledge domain)	beyond anyone else's willingness to follow since anyone operating on this level will follow their own paths
fear and intimidation, backing away slowly	all-seing / game-changer / world-changer
cowering in the fetal position or kill the heathen!

So a real creative genius is someone who creates something new and valuable, creating that thing was a COMPLEX task, not just a long and arduous one despite its final appearance looking simple, and they did all this in a direction which the few other people who CAN follow simply WON'T because there's too many things to do and too few genuine creative geniuses to do them.

The Real Deal

How do I know I'm the real deal instead of a crazed nutter? Because I tend to elicit the 'damn, that's so obvious now' reaction from people who elicit that same reaction from people like you. Because the higher up you yourself are, the lower your own reaction to others will be. It's the reason why creative geniuses can recognize other creative geniuses. And the table of reactions above is calibrated for passive people.

How does anyone know I'm not a fake and a Narcissist lying through my teeth? Because I don't steal credit and because I want neither glory nor adulation. Rather, adulation will be met with withering verbal abuse the likes of which will make you long for the gentle caress of a cat o nine tails. I despise flattery, associating it with brown-nosing which is Self-Abasement which is done by EVIL people. If you try to flatter me, there's an even chance that I WILL TELL YOU TO DIE!!!

Compare and contrast this with Eliezer Yudkowsky's sordid and sleazy careful cultivation of a cult of nitwits praising him and his unabashed self-praise and eliciting of praise from his followers! That Narcissistic fuck once asked people in all seriousness "do you know anyone more natively intelligent than I am?" and then tried to dismiss the copious examples. The fact he humiliated himself so easily in public is a sign of his (and every other Narcissist's) profound mental retardation.

This Blog

Finally, if you think "oh wow that's so amazing" about my blog, that's not because you're a creative genius. It's because my blog is worthless. It's purely an exercise in DRY - Don't Repeat Yourself. That is, what I don't want to do when I'm lecturing morons. Or just very ignorant people. I much prefer one on one contact for people who have potential.

Zen Buddhism Is More Evil Than Satanism

Kosho Uchiyama writes that Auguste Rodin's The Thinker, in which the "back, waist, legs, arms, and even fingers" are curled up, is the opposite of zazen posture.

It's also the exact opposite of Zen. Because thinking and judgement are the opposite of Zen!

I loathe and despise Zen Buddhism. It stands for everything I am against! It stands against everything I stand FOR.

Lies instead of Truth. Obfuscation instead of Understanding. Monotony instead of Creativity. Stagnation instead of Progress. Dissolution of Self rather than mental Integrity. Detachment from others rather than Empathy. Dispassion rather than Passion. Shrinking thoughts, emotions, values and life experience rather than Growing Space.

The kind of clarity, "enlightenment" and self-insight that Zen is supposed to instill after DECADES, I can instill in months! By actually TEACHING. I call it 'the beginning'.

I would say that I loathe Zen Buddhists worse than Psychopaths except it doesn't get any more intense than "gleefully celebrate as they burn to death". I would TOTALLY APPROVE of Zen Buddhists all being hunted down across the world and exterminated, and every last book or instructional or booklet or document referencing Zen Buddhism incinerated and erased from human history.

For thinking and judgement to prosper, Zen must die!

Zen is extremely popular in California. You know what else are popular in California? PSYCHOPATHS! The political term for 'psychopaths' is "right-libertarians". First California harbors Psychopaths, now it harbors fucking Zen Buddhists. Who are WORSE than psychopaths.

Zen Buddhism is a DISEASE. It is the product of DISEASED MINDS who HATE LIFE. It is a literal fucking MENTAL DEATH CULT.

Another notable death cult in history was Nazism. The Nazis exterminated about 10 million people. How many tens of millions of minds have the Zen Buddhists exterminated throughout history?!

Why Incest Is Popular In Fiction

I just read a couple of whines from people who find incest to be equally as disgusting as pedophilia and bestiality and demanded to know why it was more accepted than pedophilia or bestiality. Since I'm just about the only person on Earth who can explain it, I will endeavour to do exactly this.

Yours vs Mine

First of all is the observation that people who like incestuous fiction frequently declare their own revulsion at the thought of having sex with any of their real life actual family members. As near as I can tell this is unique to incestuous stories and doesn't happen with bestiality or cannibalism fetishists.

People who read or write stories featuring pedophilia have an entirely different excuse to give when they bother to give an excuse. At least the ones who aren't insane and try to justify the real life activity. Rather than claiming that they would never do this with THEIR children, they draw the line at fiction vs non-fiction.

These distinctions are important because in your brain, there are entirely different concepts for the concrete "my car", the abstract "this kind of car", and the more abstract "a car". So while people are attracted to abstract-incest, they are revolted by concrete-incest.

The reason this is so is rather simple. There is a biological mechanism that turns you off from people you're overly familiar with. This USUALLY kicks in during adolescence when you become turned off from the people you grew up with. People who just so happen to share your genetics most of the time. Idiots then conclude that there must be an "incest taboo" and that fucking people with your genetics is Wrong.

They do this because being idiots they confuse genetics with grew-up-with. And then they generalize their revulsion from the concrete to the abstract. This is how Right-Wing Authoritarian idiots (wannabe Nazis) who make up 25% of the American population, have concluded such a ludicrous thing as the "incest taboo" exists, despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In their minds, it's normal for your family members to share your genetics. And it's normal for people you grew up with to trigger overfamiliarity revulsion. Therefore, it's normal for people who share your genetics to trigger revulsion in a sexual situation. It's the RWA idiot's version of "logic" and is as simple to them as 7+13 = 20.

No Repulsion

However, that's clearly not how it works for others. Who perhaps aren't such idiots that they confuse genetics with grew-up-with, although most likely they are. No, the reason why they're not bothered by incest in the abstract is because they never generalize their revulsion in the first place. At least not in that direction. Perhaps because their brain ascribes being turned off by people they grew up with to their being old and wrinkly, or having mean personalities, or even being Evil.

Why should a child be sexually attracted to an ugly parent? Why should an anarcho-communist child be attracted to a right-wing authoritarian parent they're constantly fighting with? It doesn't make any sense. Rather, it makes sense that they aren't attracted and so there is no need to reach for any kind of more strenuous explanation such as "abstract-incest is yucky".

This explains in full why most people aren't disgusted by incest in the abstract while being repulsed by the thought of themselves practicing incest. Because most people aren't Right-Wing Authoritarians to orient their entire lives around Social Norms. And most people just don't feel the need to create false generalizations, or simply aren't any good at generalization.

It doesn't end there.

Positive Attraction

Because you see there is an OPPOSITE force that makes people ATTRACTED to the idea of abstract-incest. That force is confusion of romantic love with sexual love, of intimacy with safety.

That last is the reason why modern humans have developed a sexual fetish for plushies that had never existed before. Note also the critical importance of there not being any widespread concept that over-familiarity is a turn-off in itself as it is in actuality. If such a concept were widespread then the incest fiction would die out, except maybe for Narcissists. The same way rape fantasies (and rape itself) have largely died out.

Because sexual attraction can be turned off at any level of the mind. Something you can see in highly moral people who are revolted and turned off by catastrophists (rapists, killers, doomsayers, warmongers). Or by right-wing authoritarians (who misuse the word "morality" to mean social norms) who are revolted by deviants and freaks.

But sexual attraction ORIGINATES in the deepest level of the mind. Specifically, the part-objects level. It's the reason why disconnected body parts like tits and asses and pussies and cocks and legs and arms and feet have the power to turn anyone on. Meanwhile, romantic attraction originates in ... the SECOND-deepest level of the mind, the pair-bond level. And the whole concept of 'family' originates in ... the THIRD deepest level of the mind, the subcomponent level.

There are 11 levels in the human mind and the incest fetish, or even just finding it a turn on, is confusion between level 1, 2 and 3. Out of 11. Seen that way, it's pretty fucking predictable that abstract-incest would acquire a positive value. And equally predictable that this positive value would survive conflict with the negative value of concrete-incest.

Confusion And Distinction

Especially since human brains are quite capable of drawing a distinction between rain water, river water, saltwater, shower water, toilet water, sewage water, distilled water, reverse-osmosis water, drinkable water, H2O and water water. Despite the fact that ALL of them LOOK identical and most of them even feel and taste identical..

If you're the kind of retarded idiot that can't draw a distinction between abstract-incest and concrete-incest then I dare you to drink toilet water. After all, it's no different from drinkable water, is it?

Finally, regarding cannibalism fiction. How can you regard yourself as an educated citizen of the world if you don't know what motivates black Africans? Although for black Africans, cannibalism is rarely sexual and more likely to be about the acquisition of magic powers.

Fuck, I bet this article will get me chaff from inbred yokels who don't even know what the word 'intersexed' means. You know the kind, the ones who titter nervously at those articles describing how tigers have barbed penises and ducks have twin penises and so on. Rather than lift an eyebrow in very mild interest then flip the page over. RWA fucks.

First Contact With Human Cultures

First Contact with other human cultures is a mainstay of science-fiction. I started reading a Battlestar Galactica / Star Trek crossover when I realized something rather important.

Spock raised his eyebrow further. "This is your method of defusing, Captain?"

I agree with Spock, that Kirk's methodology is completely frakking lame. Especially since it's rather obvious from the Enterprise's first scans that they're dealing with refugees. The Galactica's fleet is battle-scarred and they have too high a population for mercenaries.

Do you know how you greet a fleet of wartorn human refugees? You send them a hail consisting of music. Specifically, Sol Invictus by audiomachine looping a couple times till everyone's listening to it. Then you greet them with,

"Welcome to your new home, if you wish it. Your epic journey is over. You are safe now, fellow humans."

over and over and over for an hour or until they finally get the message. Soothe their pride and their anger at the same time as you IGNORE it. Ignore all hails, all demands for introduction, all personal introductions, all posturing, all speechifying, all politicking. Until one of the magic words are spoken, "we need medical supplies / food" or "where do we go?" Then IMPERSONALLY offer them coordinates like you're offering them the steak or the salmon for dinner.

CONFUSION TO THE ENEMY. The very first principle of war. Can you think of any pompous warmongering asshole that would have the first clue how to respond to a message like this? I can't, therefore this strategy can't possibly lose. But it can win big.

When you want to express EMOTIONS, words are insufficient and they positively get in the way. Words suck. But music is awesome. So why not use it? And both 'reassurance' and 'belligerance' are emotions, therefore they can (and HAVE) been expressed by music.

People prefer face to face communications precisely because they can see someone's FACIAL EXPRESSIONS. What are the facial expressions of a starship? That convey emotions to those watching it? There are none. But music creates a fantastic substitute so long as you build up a library of emotional songs.

Emotions, and music, are both a tool and a weapon. And it's pathetic how they aren't used. How instead you have political speechifying by narcissistic assholes propping themselves up, claiming to "represent" this or that political unity. As if the self-description of the political entity could ever mean anything to a complete stranger who's never heard of it before!

I Don't Read Academic Papers

Obfuscation

I've read Richard Gabriel before and I refuse to read any more from him, or any other obfuscator. You know, until now I didn't know why him and his ilk repulsed me so much. I had some vague explanations like "I'm overwhelmed with work" or "I'm done the intellectual phase of my life" but there are too many counter-examples to those.

A few minutes thinking about it in the proper framework, of this being a STALL (something I couldn't do no matter how much I wanted to because it violated my principles) and I pinpointed the reason why. It's because Truth and Understanding are core values for me which makes Clarity (related to their combination) a +2, which makes people like Gabriel a -2. Meaning, someone I HATE. The same for all the trash they write. So him, Paul Graham, and anything written in an academic paper form or on PDF are not saying anything I want to hear.

If they had anything meaningful, important and intelligent to say about the world, they wouldn't be doing their very best to appear to be two-faced flimflam artists. And every single last academic paper sounds like this because they eschew plain ordinary language in favour of pretentious passive-voiced historico-linguistic crap. Pretentious liars who want to APPEAR authoritative when I don't consider them authoritative at all.

But the worst for me are people like Richard Gabriel who show SOME of what I'm looking for. Their coming so close and yet landing so far off just makes them more frustrating.

Clarity

If someone isn't CLEAR then it's because they don't understand what they're saying OR they don't consider it important OR they don't consider you important. If someone is LENGTHY then it strikes down the last possibility, leaving only the first two.

Now, if someone doesn't understand what they're saying, why should you waste your time reading what they're saying? And if someone considers what they say to be unimportant, then why would you show them disrespect by failing to reciprocate their feelings, something you do when you read what they wrote?

Writers who aren't trying to communicate shouldn't be read.

As for books, the last ones I read turned out to be nonsense so ... they follow the same rule. To be precise, two of the last four books I've tried to read (A Theory of Justice and The Art of Interactive Programming) turned out to be nonsense. The amazing part is that I ended up with ironclad proof of this after only a few chapters. And the other two books (No Contest: The Case Against Competition, and The Seven Day Weekend) were monotonous because I already wholeheartedly agreed with their central thesis and didn't need a how-to in order to walk through all the implications. The first few chapters was enough for boredom to set in. Small wonder I haven't tried to read any book in years.

Finally, there is this notion among the weak that you need to encourage "critical thinking" by not saying anything. The so-called Socratic method. When in reality, Socrates was just a flimflam artist who spewed contradictions all the time. Well, it doesn't matter, because my mind is not so weak that critical thinking can be turned off. It doesn't need to be "encouraged" or "nurtured". Which is why I have nothing but contempt for those notions outside of a K-12 classroom setting. And as I'm not K-12, it's patronizing and condescending as hell.

To summarize, if someone obfuscates in their writings then they're an idiot so their writings are worthless, they're the kind of idiot who would condescend to their audience hence their writings are worthless, or their writings are just worthless and they know it. Clarity is the hallmark of communication. Unclear communication is no communication at all.

Physicists Don't Want You To Understand Physics

This is quantum theory. This is quantum mechanics. This too.

But the guy in the videos is wrong when he says that it's not understood by physicists. It is, they just keep it as a super-advanced topic which only the cosmologists and superstring theorists are taught. The lower 99% of physicists are fed crap because that's what they want to eat. And they vomit that crap back to any non-physicist who wants to listen to them.

And then every so often you'll get a civilian who's more curious than 99% of physicists .... :| Or is more concerned with Truth or Understanding, rather than pontificating and looking good and saying what everyone else says or holding onto their erroneous false inherited beliefs.

When teaching you physics, the hardest thing to teach you will be what's obsolete, so that you can avoid being contaminated by it. These words are obsolete yet omnipresent:

• particle
• big bang
• uncertainty (eg, heisenberg uncertainty)
• collapse of wavefunction
• probability

So all of these obsolete concepts are taught from first year uni to PhD level, and then you go to work in physics and if you're a retard you never learn beyond them, which accounts for 90-99% of them. But then you've got people who go into cosmology or whatnot, who really CARE about the nature of the universe. And instead of talking about 'particles' they talk about 'excitations' and instead of talking about 'probabilities' they talk about 'amplitudes'. And you know what's the kick in the crotch?

If you take a probability course in the math department, they won't tell you what a probability IS. But if you go digging through old math books from decades past, you'll find it. And you know what the boring basic obvious concept taught to all 1st year math students was? It was just 'amplitude'. A probability is an amplitude ... it has nothing to do with "chance" or "luck" just *thickness*. A probability is a map from X to Y1,Y2,Y3,Y4...YN and depending on how thick the Ys are, that's their amplitude. So if there's two lines going from X to Y1 and one to Y2 then Y1's twice as 'probable' as Y2.

And you know, this is a super-super-secret-super-advanced concept in physics found in the first few pages of a banned math book ... Banned knowledge, that's what it is :| so yeah, it really is like a crypto priesthood with fucks who care more about their careers or jobs than anything else. And the whole reason they do this, refuse to teach basic concepts the way I taught you in categories of complex systems ... is because if they did, they would have to consign some big name physicists in the past to the dustbin of history. Some nobel prize winners would have to be trashed, completely forgotten and never talked about and that's the most horrifying fate imaginable to them.

The most horrifying fate imaginable to physicists ISN'T that you don't understand physics, or that NOBODY understands physics. The most horrifying fate to them is that THEY ARE FORGOTTEN. And that explains why an Evil Narcissistic fuck like Richard Feynman could get along swimmingly amongst them.

Iron Laws of Storytelling

There are lots and lots of rules of storytelling that are good ideas. Things like 'do not do ninja slash'. But these are IRON laws that must NEVER be crossed otherwise you will instantly and totally alienate your intended audience.

In romance, the princess may never die. The prince may die and frequently does. But if you kill off the princess like Babylon 5 did to Talia Winters, then you're sending the message that love is worthless.

In action thrillers, the protagonist may never be overpowered. If they're overpowered compared to the villain then there is no risk or danger, thus there is no thrill or excitement.

In heroic adventures, the protagonist may never be hypocritical in their driving values. The protagonist may be a lying conniving psychopath, but they MAY NOT be a hypocrite. And if a supporting heroic protagonist is hypocritical then the protagonist MUST call them on it. Because tolerating hypocrisy sends the message that principles are worthless and that values are worthless. Imposing one's values on the world is what adventures are about.

In Mysteries ...

In Horror ...

I'm sure these are collected somewhere, and I wouldn't mind knowing about it. I was told two of them without any explanation why they're iron laws. In fact, the cretin who pointed out that "protagonists may never be overpowered" never qualified it as applying only to action-thrillers, so it never seemed like an iron law to me since I hate action thrillers. So I only just figured out that iron laws exist and *why* they exist.

Greens Unmasked

Captain Planet, Captain Planet 2, Captain Planet 3, Captain Planet 4.

It's funny because it's true. It depicts exactly what would happen if Greens weren't just imbecilic mindless morons and instead took pride in being the murderous petty tyrants they actually are. You know, if "don't assume Evil where it can be explained by insane stupidity" weren't so true. Except for all that part where 'Evil == insane stupidity' but I digress.

Oh and Gaia's a fucking traitorous cunt, that part's true as well.