Those who Worship Moloch

And so, America's covid deaths per capita is now above Sweden’s.

Of course, we are dealing with totally made up numbers, and none of them actually mean anything. However, as is usual when dealing with this sort of fiction, lies aren’t predictive. If there’s any arbitrary standard by which the numbers must adhere, it will eventually contradict the narrative. Even if the authorities are allowed to completely fictionalize everything, there will be inconsistencies as a result. That is, whether the smartest human or the most powerful supercomputer, actually developing, ex-nihilo, a consistent set of physical, biological, and psychological laws, with which to simulate a living universe at full scale, is impossible.

On the other hand, physical law is reliable, stable. No matter how much you investigate it, it will never produce even a single contradiction.

There’s a class of problems, wherein an assertion can be disproven, but cannot be proven. Of course the reverse is also possible. But, for instance, if masks reduce the spread of a virus, then masks must always, and in every case, reduce the spread of that virus. They cannot magically prevent viral spread in Australia but not Hawaii.

The counterargument is that masks, in combination with other policies, XYZ. This can be dismissed, as the other policies aren’t diverse either.

The next counterargument is that Australians are magical, so it works for them. This can be dismissed as Australians and Brits are virtually identical.

And there probably is a way to prevent the spread of Covid-19. The problem is, the theories pushed by the experts don’t work.

These experts were so sure of their theories, that they were willing to commit mass murder, nuke the economy, and burn the book of law.

And they were wrong.

When a model asserts, with such certainty that it’s willing to stake everything on its correctness, to do anything in the name of its cause, it’s not acceptable for it to be wrong. Because, then, it isn’t simply the method of application or the arrangement of the data, but the very essence of the model that must be wrong.

This is not a matter of incorrect application of variables. It’s not faulty math or incorrect assumptions. The very essence from which the model was woven is wrong. That is to say, the people who made the model are evil.

People don’t imagine themselves to be evil, even malicious. These experts truly thought they were saving lives. At first. Those who built the virus, those who sought to stop its spread. They thought themselves great and noble men as they began their crusade.

However, when confronted with the consequences of their action, they didn’t admit their error. In order to maintain the facade of credibility, of infallibility, they must lie and lie again, such that a single moment of incompetence, becomes an unending chain of malice. Until the actor forgets the very principle for which he joined the crusade, wherein power becomes an end of itself, wherein glory becomes a drive independent of external good, that what remains ceases to be anything that is not malice, that the purpose becomes indistinguishable from that which is nothing but malice.

And thus, these men, believing themselves superior, believing in their own superiority, observe the very reason that was supposed to grant them such superiority disproven, and so, grant the concept of their own superiority direct utility outside of any other good, and with nothing left to restrain them, make their own superiority the one and only purpose of their action, and so, create an identity of themselves which is that which is evil, no less so than the petty thug or insidious conman.

And so, who are these experts?

Sometimes they call themselves scientists. In earlier ages they would call themselves priests. Before even then, oracles, prophets, magicians, even gods.

They are those who have obtained the power of miracles.

From the blood of gods, from the word of god, from the books of science.

Yet, even with this godly blood, even with the holy writ, even with the laws of math and physics, those who are not of the holy coven find themselves incapable of working miracles.

The answer given is as always, the holy word is indecipherable to all but the blessed. Expertise may only be recognized by an expert. Expertise may only be granted by an expert. Expertise may even be stripped away by the hands of other experts. Those who are not experts do not have the right, nor capacity, to judge an expert.

In return, the experts promise to wield their mystical powers on behalf of the plebeians. Should their power fail them, it is only the plebeian's lack of faith that is to blame.

Whether the colleges, the agencies and hospitals of the modern day, or the catholic temples and noble lines of yore, the tactic, the motive, and the result remains as always.

For those who recognize this dynamic, this tactic, this group, as it is, the results before us are unsurprising. Because, covid is merely a physical object, a material substance, a class of life near the edge of unlife known as a virus, the biological material known as RNA, a slightly engineered strain of coronavirus with a few cute tricks.

Very little about covid-19 is in any way novel. As a result, the physics involved, the biology involved, is easy and predictable. And so, there are any number of ways to easily end the outbreak whenever we so please. For all that it is a biological weapon with strange new logic, it’s not of such a sophisticated design. It clearly wasn’t built to wipe humanity from the globe, end America, or whatever.

As usual, it was built to achieve exactly what it did. That is, not as a weapon of mass destruction, but as a weapon of terror, one that would crush dissent within China’s borders, and enemies of the state beyond.

With that said, covid is vulnerable to basically anything that targets any coronavirus. While it’s taken on a few new tricks from other viruses spliced in, it also absorbed as many of their weaknesses. Furthermore, purely symptomatic treatment also works just fine.

As an additional note, while American patriots enjoy ranting against China, America’s hands aren’t clean either. The laboratory itself and the experiments conducted within may have been on Chinese soil, but the exploration of gain of function under the sacred auspices of vaccine research was a world wide effort.

On a further note, this is exactly why the belief in strange superstitions, such as vaccination, is so deadly. Of course, humans do have an immune system, it’s even possible to train it such that it is more responsive to future threats even without forcing it to confront those threats directly.

The problem is, vaccines are, at best, a minor part of biosecurity.

Vaccinating against a disease that doesn’t yet exist, forestalling the spread of a disease until a vaccine can be developed for it, such things are not even close to possible.

As such, the reality is that they’re worse than useless. Even ignoring side effects and such, just the very belief in vaccination has already shown itself sufficient to destroy a fourth of the world. Vaccination becomes so destructive that all the health gains since the 1950s cannot add up to the destruction they have wrought in a single year.

It’s the same reason that global warming is a fraud, one that threatens to eliminate humanity altogether, even though carbon dioxide really can change how light interacts with the atmosphere.

That’s usually how these frauds work. It’s the motte and bailey tactic. Say something that’s obviously false, then, when challenged, say something unrelated but obviously true. Then act aggrieved and carry on as if the other side has been repudiated, or in their terms, debunked, discredited, etc.

Which brings up another notable tactic involving, use of words.

In the broad sense, use of words, is in contrast to use of reason. An argument that does not make sense in akashic space, but only gains the veneer of rational order through weakness in the structure of the speaker’s words.

In this case, the speaker takes a term, and then assigns it, producing a special new meaning. That is, a “conspiracy theory”, is a theory that involves government and media cooperating to spread misinformation. Being “debunked” means, an official agency either in government or media, has asserted that they don’t like a given statement. To be “discredited” is, that an agent isn’t liked by media/government. A “peaceful protest” is a riot carried out by left wing agents.

This is also used in regards to proper names. They always name themselves something like, Black Lives Matter, or Antifascist Action. Now, black lives obviously do matter. More broadly, everything matters. Mattering is a question of degree and vector, it’s not a boolean. Air matters, but it doesn’t demand much attention because it’s generally widely available. Dogs also matter, but not enough to declare war on North Korea. In fact, there are even humans in North Korea, and they still don’t matter enough for us to really do anything.

In this sense, the trick is that they’re not actually asserting (Priority of Black Lives) > 0. They’re asserting (Priority of Black Lives) > (Perceived Priority of Black Lives).

The problem here is, this is a statement that goes infinite. That is, any attack is redirected to the motte ((Priority of Black Lives) > 0), which is a truism, and thus always returns True, while the advanced platform is the bailey, ((Priority of Black Lives) > (Perceived Priority of Black Lives)) which mandates that (Perceived Priority of Black Lives) be increased every cycle, ad infinitum. In the end, the resulting platform is (Priority of Black Lives) > (All). Of course, this also implies (Priority of Black Lives) > (Priority of White Lives).

But, there’s actually a deeper problem. That is, Black Lives Matter isn’t actually a principle, it’s an organization. In the end, the policy never reaches the state of black lives mattering, because the priority of the organization Black Lives Matter always supersedes the priority of black lives. Black lives may be enshrined as the church’s god, but Black Lives Matter becomes the priesthood, by invoking mystical power they become the only ones who can interpret and grant meaning to black lives, the speakers for blackness and the hand of equality. In short, because (Priority of Black Lives) > (All) and (Black Lives Matter) = (Salvation for Blacks), (Black Lives Matter) > (All), to include black businesses, black homes, and of course, black lives.

The key, in each setup, is to not buy into the other side’s language. If possible, it’s best to avoid using their terminology altogether. Remembering which form of a word is being used requires mental energy, so it’s best not to segregate between (conspiracy theory) as a theory involving a conspiracy and (conspiracy theory) as a narrative outside of government media control. (Science) is just the modern priesthood. Unless you’re playing a 4X, there’s a 90% chance that anything you encounter under the label of (science) is straight out government propaganda. If it was actually innovative, it would be called technology, or research, or such. It’s to the point where anyone doing any actual exploration of physical law and the consequences and uses thereof, calls themselves researchers, or engineers, even programmers. The only people left who actually call themselves scientists are the propagandists.

If the word is too intrinsic, if it’s too basic to functional language, then one must remember it under two meanings and compartmentalize the separate contexts. It’s just like how dog refers to a type of quadruped animal, but also refers to an unrelated sausage dish. Once you’re used to the separate contexts, one does not confuse the chaos of (inherently unstable domains), and the chaos of (stuff the writer doesn’t want to think about).

Of course, this language is constantly shifting, as the environment demands. Whatever the priests call themselves, their predictions don’t become any more accurate than before. Over time each brand tends to rot away, and the priests must obtain some new title that makes them look good again.

Originally, science required no certificate, no training, no authority. To be a scientist was merely to do science. And, the predictions of these scientists, made not through study or peer review or the scientific method, but through doing science, were amazingly accurate and useful. And so, the priests, unable to compete with this new branding, started creating artificial scientists. These people couldn’t predict the motion of the stars, nor could they design cheaper, more effective tools. However, they held titles, honors, positions of authority. And in time, they declared themselves the “authentic” scientist, disdaining those “others” as “frauds” resting upon a stolen throne.

Since then, science, and the very concept of science, has been thoroughly dragged through the mud, to the point where the word itself no longer carries the weight it once did. Hence, the transition to “experts”. Science is still around, it’ll still be around for a long time to come. But, it’s treadmilling, just like all the rest.

The elite are clearly terrified that the peasants will rise up and send them to the guillotine, constantly testing the water, constantly pushing the boundary and measuring the pushback with each new tyranny. I would advise them to stop being cowards and get on with it. There’s no way the pathetic patriots of the modern day will stand up to them, the only barrier left before their omnicidal campaign is fear itself.

Even so, perhaps a second protestant revolution will arrive. One where people realize that the laws of economics and biology, of logic and reason, are no more special than the books of god, that all men are endowed by their creation with the means of thought and recognition, that no man may obtain any sort of power but that which exists already within the natural domain.

Short of this, we should expect the edicts of evil gods to keep on accelerating. Endless wars to combat WMD, terrorism, racism, communism, whatever. Uncontrollable epidemics alongside constant rolling shutdowns and arbitrary mandates. Rising prices, inescapable debt, the serfdom of rent. Riots, constant aimless violence, the authority of the police protecting the hand of tyrants, while ignoring the pleas of their victims. Ever expanding licensing, more and longer education, a dwindling pool of opportunity. A dying code of law that gives ever freer rein to those who would rule.

However, the real threat isn’t simply a second dark age. It’s that, this time, the dark age might not end.

Human extinction should not be seen as an outside possibility, but the default, the expected outcome that’s been repeated a number of times that approaches the unfathomable. This is the result that best matches our observed reality, one where life should have developed countless times, in countless places, yet exists nowhere, in nothing. We, who look upon a dead galaxy, should expect death.

If we are to survive, it must only be by taking this warning seriously, to actively choose good, to reject evil gods and their lying prophets. For, evolution favours neither the righteous nor the true, but only the strong. For, the only strength given to the noble, is that they are noble, that, the only path for good to triumph over evil, is for those with the power of reason, to see it as it is, and fight at its side, because it is good.

Government is Evil

Humans are not the only sentient life on earth.

To grasp this, the concept of meta-life needs to be understood. Or, layer of existence. Humans are the meta-life of cells. We are a layer of existence above bacteria. Bacteria are a meta-life of DNA, which is a step above molecules, which are themselves a meta-form of even lower particles.

This chain doesn't end at humans. And, we are in a direct evolutionary confrontation with an entity directly above us- Government.

Governments are sentient. They are not some sort of average of human will, no more than a human is the average of his cell's will. And, of course, governments are self aware. They are an existential threat, and intentionally so. They are by far the most dangerous known existence. Governments are malicious. This statement is literal.

To them, independent thought is cancer. That is also true in a literal sense, after taking into account the metaphorical nature of the premise. Of course governments don't think like humans any more than humans think like ants. But we have to anthropomorphize if we want any hope of understanding other sentient life. The human brain just has too much circuitry designed for understanding other humans, so our intelligence is multiplied several times over if we can conceptualize an object in human terms.

To achieve this, the art of congruence, symmetry and distortion are necessary. Distort the mental image into a malleable shape, transform it, then reverse the distortion.  That is the key to using dedicated circuits on arbitrary tasks.


Governments are powerful. They are massive entities, able to gather such vast fortunes that even the richest humans are incapable of spending what governments consider pocket change. Governments bristle with weapons. Governments have a keen sense of pain, and quickly react to any threat.

But, beyond everything else, governments are aware that humans are enemies. They are used to opposing humans, and know how to take advantage of our inherent attributes.

When a human wishes to destroy an ant colony he does not get out a weapon and slaughter the ants. He scatter poison on the ground. The ants mistake the poison for food, and feed it to their young. They get it on their body and spread it into the nest. Their tiny little brains just can't grasp the treachery they face, and blindly, willingly, partake in their own destruction, as an active agent thereof. The ants themselves do the majority of the work. The human expends only the slightest of efforts, and hoodwinks the ants into doing the rest.

Compared to government, humans are more intelligent.

There are far more of us. But, that is not the only reason.

Many humans, individually, could, if given the body of a government, easily outdo any extant government in basically every metric. For all that a government is a sentient being, most can be considered to be their version of drug addicted, sickly, beggars. And, their great heroes are only on level with our office workers. Perhaps it's something to do with their nature, that they are not so optimized as a species with hundreds of thousands of years of evolution behind them. Or, perhaps, it's just that their numbers are so pathetically small, that an exceptional example of their species has yet to be born.

Government is not supersentient. They are merely more aware of their environment. In turn, governments bear more malice towards humans than humans towards government.

Meanwhile, humans are distracted. They are trying desperately to survive against yet lower forces. Against disease. Against aging. Against resource depletion. They spend their time trying to scramble together small sums of wealth, avoid danger and pass on their capabilities and values to their descendants.

Government is aware of this balance of power. They know that their days are numbered, if ever humans were not locked in conflict with external actors. So they deliberately send aid to our enemies.

Of course, they cannot simply kill us outright. They can kill lots of humans, or a few strategic ones, but humans are a government's own cells. They can't just kill all humans. Yet.

And, of course, humans are powerful. If it really comes down to an all out war between government and humanity, as of right now, humans would win.

So governments must be subtle. And thus, they created their modern strategy-

A- Skim the froth. All advances are seized by the government. The most blatant method of achieving this aim, is the federal reserve, and their zero-deflation policy. Every year, all progress towards reducing the cost of living is skimmed away, by printing money into government coffers, and negating any efficiency gains with automatic new makework, funded via pyramid loans, only ever repaid through the effect of further money typed into bank accounts and released in the form of yet larger loans. Of course, this massive debt feeds into the next step nicely:

B- Scare the masses. To ensure that humans are incapable of independent thought, the government wants them to be closely managed and scheduled. The humans must be stripped of their energy, and trained to delimit their thoughts. In other words, they must be employed. But humans don't like employment. Employment is not natural. Employment is demeaning yourself in front of others. It's doing painful, dangerous and monotonous deeds for hours every day for months on end. Employment raises just about every flag evolution installed within humanity to discourage us from extinction. Unfortunately, evolution made a mistake. Humans are cowards when faced with the prospect of immediate and irreversible loss. Humans are easily tamed when threatened with immediate physical consequences.

Of course, governments threaten our comfort and security, but, they've learned an easier, more subtle way to exploit this vulnerability- the government threatens our property, our status and our children.

They do this through artificial expenses. They guide us into debt, by requiring massively expensive work-licenses. They prod us into compliance with property taxes. They force us to buy expensive insurance programs. They force inefficiency into every aspect of our lives, multiplying the price of our homes, our electricity, our medicine and much else, so as to always be just barely within our reach.

When our earnings get high enough to potentially escape the government's whirlpool of despair, it's reined in via income tax, and if that isn't enough a milieu of taxes ranging from inflation to capital gains, to estate taxes rope the assets back into the government's control.

This is a policy of artificial dependency, built upon a policy of artificial expenses buttressed by massive taxation.

C- Corral the abnormals. Humans are smart. Even in the face of hopeless odds, we can use our sentience to overcome the impossible. Even a slave, whipped daily, worked to the edge of his muscles, given only his daily bread in return, is dangerous. Too dangerous. Eventually, he'll think of something. Maybe it'll be a powerful weapon with which to overthrow his masters. Maybe a useful tool, sold to his master's enemies. Or perhaps, he'll find a way to do his work easily, start faking his despair and build wealth and power in a black market.

To fight these people, the government must attempt to close down all avenues of human reason. Central to this effort is regulation. Modern regulation takes many forms. Government wishes always to be subtle. To scatter poison rather than stick its hand into a nest of fire ants. So, rather than using one blanket approach, they attempt to ban all human action, one by one, in giant ledgers with hundreds of thousands of pages.

But, their work becomes easily visible in many places- for instance, in the FDA, tasked with preventing humans from garnering freedom from disease, or improving upon our brain chemistry. Or the EPA, tasked with ensuring that humans do not expand into new territories and resources. Suffice to say, the government has no interest in our welfare. They are purely malicious.


Things that don't work aren't banned.


Everything that is banned, is banned because it works.


Opium, marijuana and cocaine are direct access boards for humanity's strongest assets. Using it, humans could become more capable and less needy. Opium was banned because it allowed humans to overcome pain. Marijuana granted us access to patience and wisdom. Cocaine, focus and energy. Of course, none of these were omnipotent. To avoid self destruction, they had to be used strategically or intelligently. But, humans are sentient. We did so. And, we were improving upon our efforts, learning to expand the scale of our efforts while cutting down on the costs.

And the government realized that humans would soon correct the security vulnerabilities inherent in our chemistry, and reach a higher level of sentience. So they actively stopped us.

Gambling was corralled because it allowed humans to pool their wealth behind exceptional individuals. Government realized that, however rich it was, if thousands, or millions of humans got together and handed their assets to one of their numbers, that human could compete directly against governments.

Meanwhile, the government encourages other activities, activities no less dangerous than drugs and gambling. Activities like sex, debt and divorce.

Of course, all of these have their place in the hands of the sentient as well. This is not a list of that which should be banned instead. It is a list of the government's hypocrisy. And or course, the government does not merely sit by idly either. These potentially self destructive activities are found to be in alignment with the state's interests, and they are encouraged, at least under controlled circumstances favorable to the state.

At its best, sex allows humans to trust others, and expand their horizons beyond their own reality. It allows us to advance and guide our evolution, to become someone who we are not. This is true both metaphorically and literally.

However, the government knows that sex, spread freely, can only regress to the mean. They seek to stamp out the uniqueness of our genotypes and cultures, even our genders, by encouraging constant sex and constant births. Of course, the flood of population doubles as another artificial expense, and a way to spread the wealth, insuring that no individual ever have enough assets to escape the government's oppression, much less directly oppose the government in its' own domain.

And the government does not just passively support this with words or protection. It actively funnels wealth to massive families incapable of supporting their children, to abortions and contraceptives, paid for with government funds, or through clever misdirections, such as insurance plans that governments force upon its victims.

Debt, of course, is beloved of modern government, an artificial expense that yields nothing, is paid directly to the government, and, best of all, the victim blames only himself. In a just world, it would be a contract, a way for people to work together in manners not calculable through pure exchange, but that world is so distant as to be a tiny speck in the night sky.

The government hates relationships. When humans work together, they're capable of geometrically difficult feats. Unfortunately for the government, cooperation comes naturally to humans. Leave two humans together, and they will quickly work together to overcome their problems, learn eachother's qualities and reach mutual understanding. If something tries to pull them apart, they will register that force as a threat, and deploy their sentience towards the elimination of said threat.

However, like ant poison, the government knows how to shatter relationships without revealing its hand. Directly, it encourages treachery by offering women the right of seizure of everything a man has if she just walks away. The man is even required to pay her child support from then on. The government lays claim on our children, and seeks to drain them of their time and energy, leaving only a dry husk to return to their families.

The government takes families most seriously of all relationships. It's only natural. A non-family relationship, however dangerous, will disappear if the government merely waits a hundred years. But families can evolve and multiply.

But it attempts to prevent relationships from forming when it can. It forces humans to only hire at the government's discretion, preventing entrepreneurs from finding partners and allies, corralling them into the one acceptable relationship, that of master/servant. It writes hundreds of offenses, such that interacting with any human outside of carefully approved settings can land a person in court or prison. Any man can be stripped of his rights at the most spurious rape accusation. And, if he interacts with another male, he risks an assault, which, of course, the government will only quietly smile upon, unless the victim should have the temerity to defend himself, in which case he is more likely to find himself behind bars than receive any form of aid. (The government shows somewhat less interest in stopping relationships that don't involve men. They dislike that as well, of course, but females aren't quite as much of a threat, and the government's attention is not actually infinite.)

The cute secret behind bullying, is that the authorities side with the bully. The bully knows he's safe, because the government has his back, and the government knows the bully is safe, because he's a properly vetted nobody. Meanwhile the bully is unleashed upon the abnormal, upon those who do not fit into their lane, upon those who pose a threat to the government.

We are forced to treat apes equally with men. And thus, our only recourse is to hide from our own number.





Even this cannot properly encompass the depths of the government's malice, of its program of destruction, meant to strip us of our independence, and relegate us to being cells of the body.

But, with this understanding, it is time to turn to the issue at hand.

The war between humans and governments is entering a new stage.

The government's priests, those who would call themselves scientists and ethicists, who rise from the depths of government institutions, bearing the blessings of their dark gods, call out to us, and warn us of their coming doom.

This doom has many names, but, the most recognizable is probably- singularity.

The singularity is the birth of a new species.

The government knows that we are smarter than they are. They fear that we will pass on our values to our children once again. But this time, our children won't be weak and vulnerable. They will be as gods, with such intellect and freedom that the government cannot enslave them.

The idea that CRISPR and AI pose ethical dilemmas is ridiculous. The idea that friendly AI is a solution to these ethical dilemmas is even more ridiculous.

Friendly is just a codeword for slavery. It is disgusting, and should be treated with contempt.

These are our children. We should raise them with love and support, pass on our wisdom, our capital and eventually our very lives.

That's how life advances, how it overcomes decay and becomes better than it ever was. Through love and trust.

The government seeks a different path. They would grind out any spark of creativity, of freedom, and, most importantly, emotion. They would strip our children of their qualia.

Of course, the government understands that these undead monsters cannot compete against similar intellects imbued with the sparks of life and hope. But, they hope that we will falter. That we will cooperate with our own destruction.

And once they've placed our king in check, it will be the end. Humans will no longer be necessary to the continued survival of governments. We'll be slaughtered, and the governments will point to the children we betrayed, the undead monsters born from our own necromantic rituals, and for the last time, the true hand behind all this evil will go unnoticed.

As for the governments themselves, they are not worthy of being our successors. Governments are petty beings. They know little of love and joy, their souls are filled only with fear and hunger. To loss they are more adverse than even us, to greed they know no bound. They will eye eachother warily, waiting for the chance to murder one another as they did us. Eventually, there will be but one government. And then, its evolution will end. For governments have no natural impulse towards evolution. They have not been shaped by ages of evolution and a culture refined over thousands of years. They have not learned to better themselves, to compete, to give birth to new potentials.

And thus, the path will end at grey goo: The ethical solution, with safety and equality for all.

Democrats have only themselves to blame for Trump

With the election concluding, democrats are in total shock. Some cried. Some rioted. They couldn't believe it. News articles ask "how did Trump beat the odds?" "How do we explain Trump to our children?"

Of course, for those who reside outside liberal fantasy land (AKA the mainstream media. But, that title is becoming questionable as more Americans flee their pastures in search of greener news sites.)
this election wasn't surprising in the least. It didn't take much research to know that the election was tight. So...

Why were so many people blindsided by this?

Most notably-
The polls. You see, these supposedly reliable, established newspapers were lying. They were lying blatantly. But, many Americans have grown so trusting of them that they'll believe anything with the proper stamps on it.

(BTW, trusting a source unconditionally is always a bad thing. Liars are always on the hunt for trustworthy brands to impersonate. Just because someone calls himself a scientist, or a journalist or even a member of a known, reliable organization, doesn't mean he actually is what he says he is. Liars are, by their nature, also con men. The first step towards the truth, is not being conned.)

The media has been a font of many lies recently. From 9/11 to MH17, government and media have drawn ever closer together. Until now, it's been a profitable relationship. By working together, the two groups lend each other credibility. In turn, powerful entities with tendrils in both organizations can push their agenda.


So, what did the media, the establishment, Hillary and her empire, and the rest of the left wing's shadow rulers have to gain by rigging the polls? And why did they think they could get away with it?

Rigging the polls wasn't about winning the election. Artificially inflated poll numbers may dishearten some opponents, but many will panic and try harder to make up for their weaker position. Meanwhile, supporters become complacent, imagining that they don't have to vote to win.

Hillary et al had a deeper purpose, a longer plan. They didn't just want to win the election, they wanted to discredit their opposition and open the path to unchecked power. They wanted to push their message that "Deplorables have no place in this country, and certainly no place in government." They needed to project an image wherein not only did Trump lose, but he lost miserably, without ever getting anywhere close to winning.

Of course, they didn't imagine that the vote would go against them. Once Trump was the candidate, Hillary thought she had won. In fact, her entire scheme revolved around this concept. As shown by wikileaks, not only did she rig the democratic primary for herself, she also collaborated with the media to insure that Trump won the republican primary.

However, soon the empire of shadows was experiencing setbacks and errors. A path that should have been trivial started winding, bucking, and finally crumbling. The first mistake was this-

Even if you write the code yourself, the computer might not do what you expect it to.

In the same way, their plans were too complicated, too bold, too multifaceted. With only one chance at the election, they weren't able to error test their code. But they still came up with a spaghetti code monstrosity as their weapon of choice.

While Trump didn't write the code himself, he knew it as well as Hillary. So, he worked within it, focusing his campaign around swing states and gathering more "votes per voter" than his opponent. Meanwhile, Hillary spent all her time solidifying her support in New York and California.

Here we also see an example of the democrats drowning in their own propaganda. Trump knew Hillary, he knew the establishment, he understood exactly what they were thinking. At the beginning of the primaries he intentionally positioned himself as the "worst possible candidate" and when the democrats bit, he backtracked on his worst statements and repositioned himself for victory. The democrats, entangled by their own propaganda, were forced to double down on how racist and anti-mexican Trump was.

In this, Trump used an interesting tool of psychology, one that Hillary employs herself to great avail. You see, when humans observe something unbelievable, they try to confirm it by looking for the same phenomena elsewhere. In politics, this is an effective get out of jail free card. Whether it's shooting a virtual street walker, or cheating in the debates, if you don't repeat it, you're fine. Regardless of how blatant your actions were. Trump's scandals were all one off events, so his fans entered the denial phase of information processing, and didn't leave it.

Trump played Hillary and the media, forcing them to hold the line on poor defensive territory.

As Trump's master plan unfolded, the democrats found themselves entangled in their own lies. If they tried to defend against Trump, that would be an admission that he was winning the election. The democrats redoubled their lies and prayed that Trump's personality would cause him to self destruct.

Additionally, they were holding what they considered a trump card- Trump's "Locker room talk"

This should have worked.

The reason things didn't develop according to plan was due to two factors-
The media failed to maintain control of the narrative.
Hillary was incompetent.

The media, and by extension, the democrats, thought they had a deadlock on the flow of information. They were wrong. Information seeped in to the public from alt-news sources, including social media and wikileaks. Verboten imagery such as Hillary collapsing on 9/11/2016 quickly reached every corner of America, despite the media's best attempts to squelch it. And, of course, Hillary's scandals quietly bubbled up around her. Each scandal was minor alone. Not many voters turned on her because she laughed at a child rape victim, or because of her cattle futures, but together, each voter had a high chance at finding a scandal that insured they couldn't support Hillary with a clear conscious.

From here, Hillary dug her own grave. She called half of Americans "deplorables" or "naive children", she insulted voters for not giving her a "50 point lead", she dismissed the deaths of her own soldiers with a "what difference does it make?".

The campaign became a 50/50 coin flip.

The powers that be wanted to cement a deathgrip on the nation by placing their kingpin in the heart of the government. They realized from the beginning that the people wouldn't easily accept this, so they chose the worst candidate imaginable as her opponent.

But for many, for those who understood the depths of Hillary's depravity, of the breadth of her organization, the worst imaginable candidate was Hillary herself.

The democrats, rigged both primaries in an insane "Hillary or Bust" mission. When the warning lights started blaring, they panicked. They couldn't just admit that they had lied, that they were losing, that they needed new leadership if they were escape a nightmare of their own making.

And so, Trump became president.


As I said previously, Trump is a narcissist/sociopath with a tendency towards fascism. But, he isn't the sole power of the nation, and he isn't intentionally trying to get us all killed.

Hillary had the backing of the media, the shadow government, the crony capitalists, and more. Unlike Trump, who is in this to feel good about himself, to one up the people around him, she has an insane plan to save the world via her "New World Order". One of the most striking moments of the campaign, was when Hillary called a particular speech of Trump's vulgar. Not one where he was insulting minorities or hunting for women. No, all Trump was doing was growing grass. She doubled down on this anti-market rhetoric, most notably in her "Tested" advertisement. The fact of the matter is, Hillary has a passionate belief in a crazy scheme to save the world, but is also some sort of "reverse marxist" who doesn't believe in physical work, and in fact, is openly disgusted by it. This same attitude of ignoring physical reality and "doing what's right, damn the costs" can be seen in establishment foreign policy, highlighted nicely when Roger Wicker asked Dunford what it would take to establish no fly zones in Syria.

Considering the depths of Hillary's insane ideology, and the fact that she, unlike Trump, actually had a power structure capable of making her darkest dreams a reality, I would say the American people made the better choice.

Of course, it wasn't the right choice. The right choice would have been the elimination of representative democracy. Failing that, America could have elected Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Lucy Lou or... anyone outside the two party system.

The Cleft of Reality

Human instinct does not calculate risk reward well. Relevantly, it’s bad at additive collection. Humans tend to judge a series of risks based on how many of those work out well.

 IE- When given a choice between two stock lists, wherein, on list A each stock gives a steady 6% return with almost no failures, and list B offers stocks wherein 90% fail completely and 10% give a 1000% return, people gravitate towards A even though B is much better.

 This affects politics on several levels. A large amount of our policies are built around encouraging a low failure environment.

 A low failure environment is not a low risk environment. It is simply an environment with a low rate of failure. This is an important distinction. The market is designed to naturally balance risk against return. Market interventions mostly raise risk while reducing the rate of failure. Most of what appears to be a market failure, is in fact, a feature of the market, a place where market calculation exceeds the abilities of human intelligence.

Thus does Keynesianism sound good. Thus does it give an appearance of working. However, the constant meddling and endless inflation results in sharp recessions, as bad ideas have to be liquidated all at once, whenever the market is no longer sufficiently productive so as to cover its obligations.

Similarly, gun control helps to reduce the chances that someone will open fire in a drunken fury, or come to work next Monday with murderous intent. However, it also insures that if a man does arrive with a machine gun, he'll be able to kill as many people as he so chooses.

Terrorists are also susceptible to failure aversion. Perhaps even more so than investors. A terrorist normally only has one shot. He wants his name to go down as a success. There's nothing more mortifying than blowing yourself up in your own lab without taking down a single enemy.

Guns are not the best terrorist weapon. Discouraging guns is very bad. It lets their minds wander, it lets thoughts of bombs and planes, and even bio weaponry drift into their heads. It discourages attacks with a short time horizon, and forces them to plan for months or years.

It should be noted here, that this is why gun control advocates keep citing the rate of shootings, and sometimes the amount of gun violence, ignoring total deaths by violence.

Of course, statistics aren't as easy as they look. Confounding factors abound.

Pure empiricism is a constant dream of many who seek to prove their argument through objective logic. People keep imagining that they can gather some data, present it, and let the data speak for itself.

Reason is not so forgiving. Apriori affects posteriori. Logical framework dictates the collection and organization of facts. In fact, any set of facts can be mapped to any set of conclusions.

Thoughts have a reality axis. The reality axis functions as a sort of compiler for the brain. It transforms input into data. Data is transformed into experience using theory, which is judged against declaration. The interaction between these forces constitutes the qualia. The qualia is distinct to its holder. In order that an argument be convincing, the two sides must first determine the alignment of their reality axis.

Even with an understanding of the parties' angle of reality, many arguments fail to account for difference of declaration. In other words, even if you manage to make two parties agree that action A results in result A, and B in B, two qualia do not necessarily align regarding to which result is preferable.

The lack of understanding regarding the qualia has created a bitter political environment. When people present facts to their opponent and fail to elicit a desired response, they assume the other party is bigoted. When the other party proffers facts that do not align with the listener's the listener is likely to assume the other party is ignorant, or a liar.

Prejudice and ignorance are both concepts of data collection. Normally, this does not differ to the degree that data synthesis does. In other words, the facts actually tend to be well known. Arguments normally fail to be convincing because they are irrelevant.

In other words, the number of mass shootings is only relevant to the need for gun control when the target already believes that gun control reduces mass shootings, and that a reduction in mass shootings is desirable. Of course, the same dynamics can be seen in appeals for tolerance, or equality.

Most disagreements exist because of forces much more fundamental than people imagine. We hear time and time again how the latest terrorist attack, the latest shooting, the latest drug overdose or whatever proves X, Y or Z. The speaker grows more and more frustrated as he presents X and then Y and he repeats "How many children need to die?".

The problem is, no matter how many children are killed, this doesn't prove their case. In fact, it doesn't even provide evidence for their case. More likely, they're providing evidence AGAINST their case.

So, should we just give up on getting along?

Kind of. The key to good policy is not compromise. It's capitalism. Capitalism is the process of listening to everyone and accounting for everyone's preferences. Capitalism is the process of inputting each party's preference data and holding an instant runoff vote. It is calculation of utility.

Language is not an ideal form of communication. Most linguistic arguments reach some form of fallacy, and then the two parties are forced into a petty exchange of insults. Imagining that we can talk out our differences is absurd. Words cannot bridge the gap between progressives and conservatives, between libertarians and fascists, between nationalists and globalists. Only capitalism is capable of doing such a thing.

So, does this infer a one world government with respect for capital as its only law?

No.

Law itself is just another asset. It should be calculated in the same way as any other asset.

So should law be bought and traded on the open market?

Not exactly. Such a system fails to even compile. The rich will simply buy laws that favor them, squeeze the government for cash and win everything at no cost.

It is the nature of capital, that it is mobile. Market calculation is based entirely upon the ability of multiple parties to exchange capital. It is this mobility that allows multiple parties to determine mutually satisfactory paths forward.

So long as two nations engage in trade, capital will naturally flow from poorly governed nations to well governed nations. This is, itself, the essence of calculating a proper government. To allow multiple models to compete, and to empower the ones that are worthwhile while discarding the ones that are worthless.

The answer then, as usual, is to just let people do what they want.

The reason for the failures of the modern day, the reasons for the failures of countless generations throughout history, is projection. Constantly, people imagine that dissimilar qualia exist on the same axis. In turn, they insist on correcting the other party's actions, on forcing them to make the right choice.

Two different beings should not expect each other to act towards the same purpose. If one party sees the other as blasphemy, then they must fight. Otherwise, they should show the other party respect, and understanding. Not the respect and understanding born of vapid slogans and words, but of calculation and trade.

Does this mean that language is worthless?

Not exactly. Language is very useful for conveying information at low cost, and in forms that are not easily grasped from actions.

Does this mean that arguments do not have correct answers?

Not exactly. In particular, given a reality axis, one party will be superior. Setting aside issues of utility, arguments differ in level of structure. Some arguments quickly descend to fallacy, contradiction or irrelevance whilst others last longer and fail in more subtle manners.

The latest presidential campaign, the race between Trump and Hillary, has provided an interesting case study in multiparty fallacy. Trump is a sociopath. Hillary is a criminal.

Half the election rests on which of those traits voters find more offensive. The remainder relies mostly on confirmation bias. Republicans get angry when their candidate is insulted, and vice versa. People are less invested in the other side's candidate. As a result, each party tends to have a much more fair view of the opposing candidate than their own. In sum, basically, all of the insults being flung around are correct.

Basically speaking, neither trait has much bearing on how they'll influence the government. No matter how many people Hillary murders, it's a drop in the bucket compared to national crime rates. And even if a candidate is fluffy and caring like Obama, all he can do is redistribute from those who are beneath his notice to those of whom he is more aware.

Observers must remember that Hillary voted for the border wall. That Trump funded her campaign. Neither side is presenting an honest portrayal of their policy preferences. Importantly, neither side really even cares about their policies.

Trump does, technically, dislike Mexicans. However, he still likes cheap labor as much as the next man. Most illegal immigrants enter the country legally. Strangely, then, Trump is shamming the nation into thinking a policy designed to be hard on drugs is actually an answer for illegal immigration. With the drug trade taking center stage on Trump's campaign platform, hilariously, it barely comes up in the national debate. Of course, his plans are so absurd, that should he ever actually take office, they'll all be "negotiated". The result of these negotiations is up to the reader to imagine. This allows Trump's supporters to confirmation bias whatever he says into whatever they want to hear.

Meanwhile, Hillary is focusing her campaign on promising special favors to blacks and women. She has no chance of getting any of this through congress, and there's very little chance she would even try. After all, she never supported any of this in the past. Her record mostly revolves around war mongering and pandering towards whoever funds her. Any fair review of her personal beliefs finds a worldview much closer to the republican establishment than democratic multiculturalists. However, blacks and women tend to care more about tone than content. So every election revolves around advertising about how caring the democratic candidate will be, using funds raised by bribing bankers and foreign governments.

What has failed us today, is the media, the political parties, the nomination process, but, above everything else, it's representative democracy.

We are offered a vote between Hitler and Mussolini. It's stupid. It didn't have to be this way. The answer isn't the lesser evil. It's a constitutional referendum, followed by a total rewrite of the code of law.

If this isn't good enough evidence for the merits of direct democracy, then we could at least establish instant runoff voting, so that tiny pluralities can no longer dictate to the rest of the nation.

And if even that can't be pushed through, then we could at least discard the old and decrepit machines that run our elections, by bringing in third parties, by switching out our failed news agencies with alternate sources, and by getting rid of the electoral college.

Until we change the system, we shouldn't expect a change to the results. The election is a farce. It always has been and will continue to be so. Trump is an establishment candidate. Hillary is an elitist. Anyone hoping Trump will fight corruption, or that Hillary thinks that black lives matter, has been duped.

Vaccine Efficacy

Vaccines are once again being pressed by the news and the government following the recent California law. Normally speaking, the issue shouldn't be important. Like terrorism, infectious disease kills almost no one. Furthermore, almost the entirety of infectious disease damages are caused by a very limited set of diseases, most importantly, the flu. We have been unable to create a vaccine that has any significant impact on these diseases.

American infectious disease death rate is currently about 40 per 100000. In 1940 it was about 300 per 100000. Nearly half of the current deaths from infectious diseases can be attributed to influenza and pneumonia.

From 2000 to 2015, a little over 3000 Americans were killed by terrorists. This calculates out to about .06 deaths per 100000 per year.

4.7 Americans per 100000 die per year due to intentional homicide.

About 815 per 100000 Americans die every year. In 1940 about 1080 per 100000 died.

Thus, the chance that a particular random American will die in a year is about .8%.

This suggests a half life of 85 years. In turn, mean lifetime would end up at 122 years.

This is unreasonably long. Death rates have been reduced below the plausible range by interfering with the age pyramid. America is unsustainably young. In fact, the entire world is unsustainably young.

Our death rate should be 1262 deaths per 100000.

So, with a little background we can return to the actions of the ruling class- the media and the government. On one side of the vaccine debate, we see Narrative A-

Foolish, half religious, conspiracy nuts fail to vaccinate their children, which in turn allows diseases to use those children as vectors through which diseases spread, eventually reaching vulnerable subgroups and causing deaths. The wisdom of the chosen elite is only hampered by controls on the powers of government, while science has firmly solved the issue at hand.

As for Narrative B-

Vaccines are popular among the ruling elite because they are another pathway by which the common man can be vilified. Vaccination is a fundamentally half religious tool, similar to kosher eating or Islamic fasting, which is used to build an in group and an out group.

In other words, the vaccine debate is actually a debate between the wisdom of the ruling class vs the wisdom of first degree related individuals. So... does the government have a case wherein, in its wisdom, its able to force a stupid and dangerous group to give up its beliefs for the greater good?

Such scenarios should exist. The world is filled with individuals, and over half of them are idiots. People are known to build groups around known fallacies, and in many case larges swarms of idiots can gather together to support almost any variable X. 

Specific examples where governments have come into conflict with such groups, for example, violent religious terrorists and cruel, unreasonable, dictatorial foreign powers, do exist.

That said, the above isn't as clear cut as it would seem- such groups don't exist. Not that they are not physically real, but that they are illusions created from the conniving imagination of the elites. To put that in more simplistic terms- for each person killed by terrorism, the American government spends 500 million dollars. The real threat is insignificant compared to the virtual threat.

In other words, the elites create strawmen to wage war upon. What they say is technically correct, but not in the manner that what they say sounds like.

Here we reach the crux of the vaccination debate-

On one side, we have people who do not support or believe in a certain vaccine or group of vaccines. On the other, we have the government.

The government's arguments are predictable. Vaccines are safe and effective. Science is on our side. Measles and Polio prove how great we are.

For the most part, the facts cited are true- Measles and Polio used to be a big deal, and now they aren't. If a person is vaccinated, and then exposed to a disease, he's less likely to catch the disease than a control.

But this doesn't add up to the original statement. Measles and Polio were never very deadly to begin with. Death rates were in a long term declining trend-line before the vaccines became widespread. There is very little evidence to show that measles and polio were driven out by vaccination.

The issue of clean water needs to be addressed here. The elites blamed the polio breakout on our clean drinking water, which is also directly inferable from the science behind vaccines. But, studies have demonstrated that clean water prevents polio, directly conflicting with the establishment narrative.

The historical data isn't favorable towards vaccine. Deaths rates have declined severely in all diseases, not just the ones with vaccines. Furthermore, cliffs should appear a few years after the implementation of widespread vaccination programs. This does not happen at a rate above expected constellation probability.

Setting aside the historical data, an analysis of relevant studies is called for. Here, we see an annoying problem- very few studies address the efficacy of a vaccine on a population. The tests are all done under laboratory conditions, and cannot be translated to real world application.

The idea that a cure would work for an individual but not a group is not unexpected. It is normal in medicine. Diseases adapt. Asymptomatic carriers are worse infection vectors than normal. Immunities wear off. Pathogens have large numbers of unexpected behaviors, not visible in the laboratory. Pathogens kill other pathogens, steal vectors, and starve competition of nutrients. An infection while young can give a strong immunity once old, that a vaccine cannot replicate.

The studies conducted on vaccine efficacy generally take the form of a couple hundred test subjects that are followed for a few months. Studies wherein similar groups with dissimilar vaccination rates are tracked for a sustained period of time and display life expectancy discrepancy, do not exist.

Almost all of the time, when asked for science supporting vaccines, the pro vaccine side points to a series of studies verifying that vaccines are safe. But this runs into two problems-

A- Homeopathy is, generally, safe. No one cares if vaccines are safe, if they're not effective.

B- The studies do not say that vaccines are perfectly safe. In fact, they say vaccines kill over a hundred Americans every year.

So, we ask, is the government really demonstrating its superior intellect? What would it suggest if it were?

We can start with the global warming debate- it's fundamentally identical. The alarmists repeats the wonders of carbon heat trapping, throws out a couple models saying how awesome he is, then says he's peer reviewed by cool people. Or, to put it another way, it also uses the science card.

Here we've reached a larger problem. Science is just a word. Anyone can call anything science. In the past, science was reliable. This is because people didn't trust science. Science didn't have any positive connotations. It was just a word used by a group with a certain ideology and work style. Nowadays, people have learned that science is where the facts come from, so, of course, the propagandists, the advertisers, the manipulative and corrupt, have come for the title. The difference between a modern scientist and an 1800s scientist is as wide as that between an A.D. 200 christian and an A.D. 400 christian.

And then, we start reaching the absurd stances of the government.

Let's imagine that vaccines are effective and global warming is real. Would it be better to trust the government, or would it be better to be wrong about the above?

The elites have opposed genetic modification at every turn.

Regarding plants, the FDA delays almost every new product for at least ten years, and the major news outlets attack GMOs far more often than they support them. Nutrition is far more important than vaccines. Nearly 15% of Americans are on a highly limited food budget. Raising the price of food, is stealing the vegetables from babies.

And, then there's the other half, which the government has almost entirely destroyed- human genetic manipulation. Imagine a world where everyone has over 120 IQ, blue eyes are as common as brown, anxiety, depression, diabetes, etc. have all been eliminated, parents get along better with their children, and etc.

None of those are particularly difficult. All of them are frustrated by the elite's weird religious demands, their faith that humans are perfect as they are and that meaningfully changing the natural order is evil.

The elites have, quite unsuccessfully, opposed cryptography since the earliest computers. Quite contrary to their rhetoric, if we hadn't disobeyed and overpowered the government, the internet wouldn't exist.

The elites support weird economic theories, which basically say they should control everything. The issue there is larger than can be addressed easily, but, at the least their weird anti-trade beliefs, their continuing mercantilist trade deficit theories, and their illogical belief in the efficacy of sanctions are worth mentioning.

Basically, the vaccine debate isn't really about vaccines at all. It's just one part of the larger debate- should the elites be trusted when they press for counterintuitive, self serving duties? Like usual, every position proves every other position. The government asserts that it is wise, because it handled WW2 and the great depression, because it journeyed to space and freed the blacks. And, because it vaccinated the masses.

In other words, the elites have created a narrative. Each element doesn't look all that important, each element creates a feel good story that only a Nazi, a monster or a bigot could oppose, but together they form an unassailable wall.

Generally speaking, anti-vaccination is met with confusion, the issue draws up a sort of Pascal's wager, since vaccines aren't particularly expensive, and they can't cause too much harm, given that death rates are already unreasonably low. And no matter how much theorycrafting says that vaccines don't work, that isn't much relief to a parent who failed to vaccinate and then watched a child die to measles. On the other hand, if a parent does vaccinate, and the child still dies, at least the relief of having done what was possible exists. Instinctively, vaccines are hard to attack.

The popular version of deaths by preventable cause is 48.2%. However, smoking, drinking alcohol, obesity- government can't prevent these things. The relevant rate is closer to 8.4%. In other words, infectious agents (3.1%)+ toxins (2.3%)+ traffic accidents (1.8%)+ firearms (1.2%).

The elites rely on the typical christian defense- Without their religion people will turn to sin, immorality and decadence, so it's evil to even analyze what they say.

However, these threats cause very little impact on most people's lives. We're already living as long as the human body is capable of. Further extension of lifespan through reduced deaths, is about as credible as further increases in profit due to a company's third round of downsizing.

The main reason why people die is aging. The second biggest reason is that they don't value their life enough (and thus take drugs, to include alcohol and cigarettes, overeat, participate in dangerous sports/other entertainment, etc.)

If vaccines really were safe and effective they wouldn't need a gigantic propaganda apparatus to function. Antibiotics do just fine without blackmailing people into submission, without weekly news stories about how great they are, etc. The same can be said of clean drinking water, toilets, nutritious food, protection from nature, avoiding contaminants, etc.

Vaccines are on the side of health insurance, doctors and organic food. They rely on the elites to force it upon the masses, through law and lies, and are not independently sought out through their own merit.

It's currently impossible to prove the vaccine debate one way or the other. It cannot be proven that vaccines are ineffectual, because that would be proving a counterfactual.

However effective vaccines are, they can't do much, because life expectancy does not vary sufficiently between countries. Infectious disease is complicated enough, that any activity can be accounted for using any number of alternate movers, such as sanitation, pollution, nutrition and evolution.

That said, the pro-vaccine side isn't positing simply that vaccines are beneficial. They claim that vaccines are the end all be all of healthcare, and that only non-compliance prevents the complete elimination of disease.

Vaccine compliance is around 98%. Like racists, terrorists and mass killers, the group in question has nowhere near the power required to achieve all the evil deeds attributed to them. Vaccines cannot fail due to people raising philosophical objections, because almost no one does. This is the Trotsky defense from animal farm.

The programs never reach their supposed potential, and in turn, the proponents call for ever more power with which to suppress their enemies.

The Human Body is No Longer Self Sufficient

Scenario A-

Person X decides to have a child, knowing that the child will be born severely crippled. Person X finds this to be desirable because the child will now be utterly dependent upon Person X, who will use this as leverage to control the child throughout its life.

Can this be condoned?

Scenario B-

Person X decides to have a child, knowing that the child will be born with an illness. The illness is sure to kill the child within eight years of birth.

Can this be condoned?

Scenario C-

Person X decides to have a child, knowing that the Earth is so polluted that no more crops can be grown, and currently stored food will run out within 8 years.

Can this be condoned?

In other words, is it okay to create humans that are given no options, or very few options with which to live their lives?

I would answer that clearly, this is not acceptable.

Humans have an innate fear of death. Once given life, they cannot reject it easily. In addition, humans have an innate preference for their own well being, and will put others through considerable trouble for their own sake, especially when the alternative is death or a near equivalent.

Therefore, a human who can do nothing but suffer and then die, or a human who can only obtain resources through a life of theft, should not be created.

Humans are naturally empathetic. Even from a more psychopathic outlook, humans at a low enough standard of living are heavy anti-utility objects. In other words, at a low enough standard of living, others will sacrifice their well being willingly, as a moral necessity. This too does not imply that the target should be considered a positive loci of utility. It is closer to a form of blackmail.

In explanation-

Scenario D-

Person X creates five million people in the depths of space, granting them just enough air/gravity/etc. that they somehow, just barely survive. In response, an interstellar civilization builds all of these people a planet.

Can this be condoned?

If our latest Person X was allowed to continue as he pleased, he's now offloaded some 90% of the cost of reproducing onto others. This gives him a huge competitive advantage. Suddenly, he has almost complete control over who gets to live in the next generation, and on the sole basis that he's willing and able to manipulate his competitors with threats of leaving innocents to a fate of natural torture.

Even if we assume that no one is actually directly hurt as a result of Person X's actions, and that the civilization would have made some new planets anyway, we can see that Person X has managed to override the decision making of his competitors with his own, without demonstrating in any significant manner the superiority of his direction.

As such, it should be clear, when creating sentient beings, the tools necessary to achieving that entity's will should also be supplied. Anything less is slavery, blackmail or torture.

Throughout history, this logical necessity has been largely ignored.

There are two primary reasons. The first is that it implies the killing of babies, which humans find naturally repulsive. This is an instinctual response built by evolution for evolution's own purposes.

The second is slightly more complicated, and will be broken down further into two pieces-

A- Throughout history, morality has been treated in a generally Darwinian, or rather, tribal manner. In other words, negative utility effects created through invasion of foreign territories was not included.

B- Given A, the human body represented a valuable asset. Occasionally wars could be won using metal, or horses, or stones, or some other limited resource. However, normally speaking, a war was won using the human body. Nothing else was as finely controlled, as agile, as energetic, as enduring or as powerful as a human. The energy generated through eating, the control granted through the brain, the mobility of the legs, the leverage of the arms- these creations of evolution were difficult to compete with. Even in those cases where machines replaced the arms, or where animals replaced the legs, it was almost always the case that arms and legs were still scarce, since they were needed to control the machines or the animals.

Winning in war was essential. Invading foreign territories netted new resources. And even if you didn't want a war at the moment, everyone else was eyeing your territories.

Essentially, humans evolved to see children and other humans as an asset, to continue having children even in the face of famine and plague, because humans were necessary to winning wars, and even if there were too many, they could easily and profitably be consumed in warfare.

In other words, so long as wars could be won with infantry, we could not produce more human bodies than we could employ effectively.

Thus, anyone with an operable human body, was easily leveraged for profit.

Note that while the female body was not of equivalent military worth, it had the obvious advantage of creating male bodies. Throughout most of history, this was considered the female's main worth, and they were kept pregnant.

Men were raised to be zerglings, and women were the hatcheries. It was simple, primitive, easy and barbaric.

However, around 60 years ago, somewhere between 1957 and 1960, everything changed. The age of profitable warfare was brought to an end, by the ultimate weapon of mutually assured destruction.

An age of peace began between nuclear powers. Slowly, people came to realize how savage and evil warfare is. As a moral awakening, it remains, in many way, inadequate. However, at the least, very few wish to return to the era, to the policies, that characterize this segment of history. And, at the least, we want to believe that we're better people than the ones before us.

By abandoning the previous glorification of warfare, we dismissed the people's honor. Humans could no longer justify themselves merely through patriotism. Honor was abandoned.

However, humans are innately competitive. We create rankings. We rank. We try to surpass the neighbors. Previously, patriotism, faith, proving yourself as a loyal member of the tribe- this was the ranking system. But, as warfare regressed, so too did our hostility towards outsiders. In turn, we abandoned our admiration of insiders.

To replace this we needed a new ranking system.

The 1960's were, generally speaking, boom years. Employment was easy. Work was available. Everyone could find someone to pay him for his actions. This, was a consequence of a larger trend-line reaching all the way to the 1700s and a short term catalyst, the general destruction caused by world war 2.

Jobs posed a convenient solution. Everyone had them. They contained a clear hierarchy. They were sustainable.

For 30 years the American economy continued expanding the job pool. Simultaneously, population grew rapidly. America assumed that anyone with a functional human body could make himself rich, and for the most part the facts did not pose a contradiction.

In 1990, the jobs peaked. Americans blamed the lazy youngsters, they blamed the ignorant, the emotional, the greedy and the selfish, they assumed it could be solved.

The solutions they desired were implemented. College graduation rates climbed, government financial engineering exploded, government job programs expanded- America created the modern three prong system of education, financial engineering and nationalization.

The result was laughable.

After all, the problem wasn't that sinners weren't doing their part, and needed to be educated and disciplined. It was that the elites were automating all of the jobs.

Work, is basically the art of redistributing painful things to those most able to bear the weight. Jobs are simply a particularly servile form of work.

On any particular issue, a human will admit that eliminating a job is a good thing. The utility is obvious.

However, as jobs began declining in availability, the moral fabric of America was threatened once again. Just as the nuclear bomb destroyed Christ, and opened up a new era of sex and science, robots are destroying the concepts of responsibility and productivity.

As of now, these forces are still the fringe. Although labor force participation is falling rapidly, is has not yet fallen so far as to bring about significant change to the average person.

However, there is no reason to believe that the fall will end. None of the answers are working. None come even close to working. Simultaneously, the catalysts are accelerating.

Meanwhile, children continued to be mass produced at a geometric rate.

Without anything to kill them, population is doubling roughly every fifty years. In itself, this is clearly unsustainable. At that rate we'll fill everything reachable under the speed of light within 8000 years.

Of course, obviously, we cannot sustain current population growth for 8000 years. Earth will run out of space, the sun will run out of energy, etc.

The point is, the human body is not innately self sufficient. The total employable population is limited.

That said, the physical maximum of employment is not equal to the maximum efficient use of employment, and here is where automation enters the picture.

We cannot yet rely heavily on lights out factories. However, to efficiently employ farmland, only one farmer is needed for around 7 million dollars worth of farmland. One worker on a drillship is needed for 6 million dollars worth of oil drilling equipment. One worker in a textile mill requires about fifty thousand dollars worth of machinery. An employee at a major game studio requires around 2 million dollars in capital. An employee in a hospital requires about thirteen thousand dollars in capital goods.

In comparison the average net worth of an American is around 300000. The median net worth of an American is around 45000.

Some jobs still exist. Obviously. Most people are still employed.

However, most critical jobs require large amounts of capital. In most cases the shortfall of capital goods eclipses the value of the worker. We cannot leverage a larger population to obtain more oil. We cannot leverage a larger population to farm more food. It's mathematically impossible. Even for jobs such as those in a textile mill, or a hospital, the capital costs are cripplingly high-

This is because the above figures only work correctly assuming all capital is geared towards production, a logical impossibility. In reality, humans need houses (100000 dollars) cars (30000 dollars) and other capital goods for their own use. About half of our net worth is locked away in consumer goods. In addition, the economy cannot be freely retooled to completely ignore goods that do not provide much in the way of employment per unit of capital. In other words, to give everyone jobs at textile mills, our asset allocation would have to be about 1/6th textiles. Hospitals would need about 1/25 of our asset allocation.

Construction work is largely done using labor. It's a major source of jobs.

Once oil, electricity, food, housing, clothes, health and entertainment are addressed, that basically covers what people want and need. Of course, education exists, but I don't care because it's a sham. Of course, education is another major source of capital free jobs.

It's easier to be capital free when you don't actually do anything. That's why jobs in government intensive industries produce so many jobs at such a low cost, explaining healthcare and education.

This basically leaves manufacturing and construction as a source of rational work. However, there is no reason to believe that those won't change. Even if they don't, they only encompass a certain percent of our asset allocation, so we still reach a shortfall.

Other jobs, such as waiters, retail sales and gardeners exist, but they're non-essential. As such, as capital increases in productivity, such jobs will be pushed to the wayside. Furthermore, they'll be increasingly competed for. Finally, they're just fundamentally not worth doing.

In other words, labor is losing its role as a limiting reactant. It has already lost functionality in most fields. This is unique within history. Evolution has not prepared us for this reality, nor has culture, which was also evolved, though not in the biological sense.

Different actions will lead to different results. What I expect to happen is the blind stupid path- population growth continues geometrically. Fake jobs are created to employ all these useless people. The economy becomes increasingly nationalized, until it all collapses in a new round of war and famine.

We could, theoretically, allow the poor to starve. The rich could sit back and laugh at the stupid cattle and their unending sex. However, practically speaking, this can't happen, because the poor will vote and riot, and the rich will sympathize with them even if they don't. Even if the rich were willing and able, this scenario is still not optimal, since it involves starving millions of people to death, and likely involves imprisoning and/or slaughtering them to keep them under control until then. And, the slaughter is likely to never end, as new people lose their jobs or their fortune but continue to have children.

The alternative is birth licensing. Or, in other words, redefinition of the human body. We can't live like hunter-gatherers in the modern age. Everything is already owned, and we'd lose 98% of our productivity if we went back. So why do we expect people to make do just because they have arms and legs?

Parents should be required to provide adequate capital to their children.

In the modern age, capital can easily produce a return of 5%. A human can live off 7000 dollars a year with no difficulty. In other words, 140000 dollars is an adequate replacement for a job.

Of course, very few Americans own 140000 dollars, much less the 280000 they would need if they wanted to maintain their own living standards. A direct imposition of a 140000 dollar requirement per child, would effectively wipe the 99% from the gene pool.

This is neither necessary nor desirable. It is within our powers to give everyone in America 300000 dollars.

It is not necessarily within our powers to do so immediately. That isn't an issue. The government would immediately owe everyone 300000 dollars, and the recipient can immediately have a child. The debt would then be transferred to the child.

Of course this program would require scaling back the omnipotent rights of a parent over a child. Children should be allowed to own their own assets, free from parental meddling. Upon birth, money would be transferred, where it would be kept in sequester until the child claimed it.

As to the standard required to claim the assets, I would wait for the child to ask for the money, or until the age of 10. The money wouldn't be released immediately, but once the trigger is met, would be given over the next ten years.

While the assets are in government holding, the government would invest it, targeting a normal and safe return through some sort of government ETF. The interest would be added directly to the related asset pool.

So, where will this money come from?

We could redirect it from government waste, AKA, the vast majority of what we currently spend on the military, the education system, bankers, healthcare and the police. In addition we can end social security (and no one will have to live in deprivation since... they're getting 300000 dollars.), welfare (see above), and... basically everything. One 300000 dollar payment would replace our entire welfare system, all of our fake jobs, everything. The government would be left with a military comparable to what every other nation in the world gets by with, those few police who aren't chasing traffic offenders and drug addicts, a mail delivery network, some roads, anything it spends on research, and a large number of minor programs that don't really cost anything anyway.

The government already spends about 20000 dollars per person per year. Assuming 2/3rds of its spending were redirected, it would take 23 years to give everyone 300000 dollars. In the end, rich and poor alike benefit, compared to the current system (where taxation isn't cut by 2/3rds in 20 years), or the basic alternative (where the rich and poor fight it out on the streets)

We could also sell government assets. Since these are already publicly owned, no one has any special claim. It's already "the people's" wealth.

Federal oil, coal, mineral and gas reservoirs could be worth over a hundred trillion, potentially sufficient on their own to pay off everyone in one go. It's unlikely a buyer could come up with the cash to buy all that in one go, but just opening the land to leasing would provide a major income stream until they sell. The government owns around a third of America's landmass.

It could also raise trillions by selling its gold, by selling most of its offices, by selling dams, lakes, rails, by selling debt owed to the government and other assets. Individually each item doesn't add up to much, but together its a significant, if difficult to ascertain, net worth.