Theory of origin myths

1. (The first law of Edenic political science) “Intra-species conflict stems from various phenotypes unconsciously trying to alter the environment to favor each of their respective reproductive strategies.”

2. Human breeding populations are best adapted to the selection pressures that produced them in the first place.

3. Therefore, each breeding population is unconsciously attempting to recreate the environmental conditions that originally produced them.

4. The aesthetic expression of this desire in the form of a story is therefore called an “origin myth”.

5. Every major human breeding population has an origin myth. Like breeding populations, myths can be layered, interwoven, and complex, corresponding to variation at the level of species, subspecies, race, etc.

Enjoy :-).

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Edenism in FF7

Put on your fedoras kids, There Will Be Autism. Instead of Vivaldi we’ll set the mood with an autistic troll:

A cursory examination of Final Fantasy VII produces a vaguely New Agey, environmentalist message with lower-case ‘e’ edenist tendencies. Woke AF red pillers will see that Jenova = Jehova and Sephiroth = Talmud = Joooooos. Manna is teh pipline ohnoes.

But readers of this blog know the Nips have been down with neanderthal theory since at least 1995. I’ll demonstrate why the obvious interpretations are untenable, and then provide my allegorical cipher, and use this context to show how the Advent Children movie actually makes a lot of sense.

The new agey paradigm has such poor resolution that even the Less Wrong types get it.

Broken Aesop: The original game had an environmental message about the Lifestream and humans abusing the planet’s natural resources to the point there was the chance Holy would see them as a threat and destroy the species. Materials set after the game, namely On The Way To A Smile, mention that people don’t like using Mako anymore because they learned this message. Instead the more “environmentally friendly” fuel of choice people are turning to is … oil.

“Save da erf”, not even wrong. Environmentalism in a nutshell, if you think about it. Just don’t eat your seedcorn and let the earth take care of itself.

In the Jew/Aryan paradigm, Sephiroth is the Rothschilds and Cloud is the Ubermensch, fighting to secure a future for Deviantartists to render Aryan waifus in wheatfields.

Jenova would then be the 2,000-year-old, tripartite, meteoric desert god stealing priest jorbs from red-blooded American pagans. This perspective works right up until you start thinking about the relationship between Zach and Cloud. I mean, what was the deal with that whole “false consciousness” thing, anyway? And why is geostigma caused by the lifestream and then healed by it?

I started to finally untangle all of this when I was watching the Crisis Core cutscenes and asked myself “Why do Sephiroth (and Kefka) only have one wing?” The answer is simple in retrospect: it’s because their ancestry is half-human, half-divine.

But wait, which side are the creators on? They seem to agree that the Roffschilds’ pedigree traces back to heavenly descension, and yet the identity-confused Aryan wins? This story doesn’t make any sense when you dwell on it a few minutes longer than Pepe mindset allows.

Here’s what I think:

Lifestream, mako, and materia = Genepool, culture, and conceptual memes
Geostigma = Corrosion/disease caused by deleterious Nephilim admixture
Sephiroth = Ancient melonhead, circa 15-30 kya
Jenova = Talmudic Lilith death cult (see also: Mammon machine in Chrono Trigger, Freudian death drive, Utilitarian anti-natalism)
Reunion = The genetic desire of Nephilim remnants to coalesce and reconstitute the original, “divine” race
Shinra = Luciferian Zodiacism (see also: Overwatch theory)
Cloud = Cro magnon/EMH, a cheap copy of Sephiroth created from human stock with Jenova cells
Zach/Aerith = Neanderthal males and females
Tifa = Sapiens backbreeding stock

For the both of us… you’re gonna… live. You’ll be… my living legacy.

-Zach Fair

This is getting long so I’ma split it into parts. Have some fun with this filter and we’ll compare answers.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

You will know them by their flags

These are the flags that you’ll actually see used effectively by Alt-Right ideologues in the coming years:


Yes, the Overton window will have moved to make this viable within 20 years.


“We don’t know what we stand for exactly, but we are armed to the teeth and right pissed.”


This flag still holds a ton of sentimental value for a lot of people. Even if the Alt-Lite agrees America has lost her way, they will fly this flag if only because it triggers leftists and globalists. It will begin to lose favor when the Baby Boomers finally start dying off in a decade or two.

I’ll start thinking about what the left will coalesce around, if anything. In the meantime, keep in mind that LARPy flags like the Gadsden snake are doomed to failure because they have no genetic/racial anchor.

Posted in Uncategorized | 20 Comments

Frame technique: Context denial

This McDonald’s advertisement is a revolution for marketing. It allows the viewer to watch it “ironically” for “entertainment”, while believing that the advertising isn’t affecting their hindbrains.

The ad is good enough to examine on its own, but it helps me to express a truth about social skills. You don’t have to be taken seriously for your reframing to work (alt: Frame, Game, sales, marketing, socializing, debate). You can play a symbolic part ironically and still get the same hindbrain effects as if you were taken seriously, because even if the motif is interpreted critically the background context will be processed uncritically. In Game, you can dress like a rock star ironically and even if the girls you’re talking to know it and are laughing at the joke (“haha 80s night”) they will still be more attracted to you.

If the background is properly managed, you can distract the prefrontal cortex with fast-paced humor and make the sale directly to the thalamus. What is the real selling point in this ad?


It’s not the sandwich because that’s in the foreground. That’s just a decoy. It’s the wood panels, the clean, white kitchen, and the apples under the jar. The sale is made by everything you see but don’t look at directly, and everything you hear but don’t pay conscious attention to. This ad is like a heat-seeking missile for huwhite people.

This is analogous to the “ignore and plow” strategy in Game. No one is better at it than leftists because context denial is quite literally their entire mindset. If you want to get better at ignore and plow, watch a debate where a leftist gets called on their bullshit. They don’t even hesitate. Dialectic and details were never the point, just like the Frork was never the point.

I use this principle constantly in work-social situations because my facial appearance gets me pigeonholed as a gangly white software engineering cuck who’s easily bullied into doing bitchwork. (“I have this great idea, all you have to do is make it.”) So I have to constantly violate expectations to keep people’s expectations off that “first impression” set point. What I do is rebuff people using the language of low-trust races—blacks, Mexicans, Russians etc.—but keeping a white frat boy’s cadence. The “joke” is that these things don’t go together, which provokes laughter and comments about how I’m the whitest dude on earth. But the real message still gets through: “I see you trying to play me and it’s not going to work because I’m a low-trust person like you.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Why the singularity thing is retarded

Expanding on a previous rant:

On singularities: Robots, computers, and factories are all just big, complex tools. Every tool is a lever. You need a human somewhere in the process to pull the lever, otherwise what you’re talking about is a perpetual motion machine. [The effect of automation on the unskilled workforce is] still the same question as whether to dig with spoons or a bulldozer, except scaled past the human capacity for imagination.


It’s important to understand that computers aren’t magic. They’re just fancy calculators hooked up to LEDs and wireless antennas. You can build purely mechanical computers out of gears, if you’ve got the room and the patience for it. I find that removing electricity from the system makes it a lot easier for people to understand that digital != abstract. There isn’t much difference, functionally, between a CPU and an abacus. How many gears do you have to line up before they become self-organizing and sentient?

Humans fall back on magical thinking when a system becomes complex beyond their powers of reason. Where the understanding of cargo dropping from the sky ends, the tribal imagination begins to supply plausible gods from their existing conceptual framework. How did the cargo gods make Netflix out of a fancy electric abacus? Surely these marvelous devices are alive and conscious in small ways, like our little purse dogs, and could become moreso if only they were bigger and more complicated.

tl;dr-abstraction and magic are the same thing. (That link is a required prerequisite for this post.)

There is a dynamic inherent to abstraction and trust. Because trust turns out to be a less intuitive concept than I’d assumed, I will quote Bruce Schneier at length:

This book is about trust. Specifically, it’s about trust within a group. It’s important that defectors not take advantage of the group, but it’s also important for everyone in the group to trust that defectors won’t take advantage.

“Trust” is a complex concept, and has a lot of flavors of meaning. Sociologist
Piotr Sztompka wrote that “trust is a bet about the future contingent actions of
others.” Political science professor Russell Hardin wrote: “Trust involves giving discretion to another to affect one’s interests.” These definitions focus on trust between individuals and, by extension, their trustworthiness.1

When we trust people, we can either trust their intentions or their actions. The first is more intimate. When we say we trust a friend, that trust isn’t tied to any particular thing he’s doing. It’s a general reliance that, whatever the situation, he’ll do the right thing: that he’s trustworthy. We trust the friend’s intentions, and know that his actions will be informed by those intentions.2

The second is less intimate, what sociologist Susan Shapiro calls impersonal
trust. When we don’t know someone, we don’t know enough about her, or her
underlying motivations, to trust her based on character alone. But we can trust
her future actions.3 We can trust that she won’t run red lights, or steal from us, or cheat on tests. We don’t know if she has a secret desire to run red lights or take our money, and we really don’t care if she does. Rather, we know that she is likely to follow most social norms of acceptable behavior because the consequences of breaking these norms are high. You can think of this kind of trust—that people will behave in a trustworthy manner even if they are not inherently trustworthy—more as confidence, and the corresponding trustworthiness as compliance.4

In another sense, we’re reducing trust to consistency or predictability. Of
course, someone who is consistent isn’t necessarily trustworthy. If someone is
a habitual thief, I don’t trust him. But I do believe (and, in another sense of the word, trust) that he will try to steal from me. I’m less interested in that aspect of trust, and more in the positive aspects. In The Naked Corporation, business strategist Don Tapscott described trust, at least in business, as the expectation that the other party will be honest, considerate, accountable, and transparent. When two people are consistent in this way, we call them cooperative.

In today’s complex society, we often trust systems more than people. It’s not
so much that I trusted the plumber at my door as that I trusted the systems that
produced him and protect me. I trusted the recommendation from my insurance
company, the legal system that would protect me if he did rob my house,
whatever the educational system is that produces and whatever insurance system
bonds skilled plumbers, and—most of all—the general societal systems that
inform how we all treat each other in society. Similarly, I trusted the banking
system, the corporate system, the system of police, the system of traffic laws,
and the system of social norms that govern most behaviors.

Bruce Schneier
Liars and Outliers

In a high-trust society, complex machines work. Engineers study hard in school and pass up on opportunities to cheat, machinists show up to work and pay attention to the quality of their work, production managers don’t pressure their machinists and assemblers to focus on quantity at the expense of quality, and users read operating manuals without looking for frivolous opportunities to sue. Even lawyers are constrained by a general sense of what their society considers appropriate.

In a low-trust society, complex machines are unreliable and dangerous. There are too many places in an industrial supply chain where something can go wrong. In modern America, we have to design our CNC machines so that operators can’t disable them so they can go home early on Fridays. Everybody is cheating and if you give a shit about your company or the long term, that makes you a cuck because your boss wants to replace you with three immigrants doing a shitty job for half the cost.

Trust enables abstraction, abstraction enables prosperity, prosperity makes in-group competition more salient than out-group competition or environmental selection, and trust drops. In the end, the only thing that’s changed is sun activity. The little ice age selected for a very high-trust European society for many years that became extremely prosperous (read: high abstraction) during the Holocene, and now is beginning to eat itself as the Holocene comes to an end. It’s an open question whether we could build a bridge if we confiscated all the Rothschilds’ unlimited money to pay for it. Good luck with the infrastructure spending, Mr. Trump, you will surely need it.

Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Comments

Pathological virtue signalling vs. pathological altruism

2017-05-13 07_46_35-angelina-jolie-kids-2afea2b7-8bd3-42b9-8916-7646f1488273.jpg (JPEG Image, 479 × 

2017-05-13 07_50_12-Tillman_small.jpg - Windows Photo Viewer

I think people get these mixed up because they want to. It’s not a difficult distinction, and yet…R-selection is also a state of mind.

RIP Pat Tillman. This country didn’t deserve you.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

The right/left political spectrum

Recall the fundamental premise of politics: intra-species conflict stems from each phenotype unconsciously trying to alter the environment to favor their respective reproductive strategies.

Leftism and rightism emerge from the free rider problem in group selection. It’s about trust, which leftists are fundamentally incapable of having, deserving, or understanding. Rightism is the political expression of high in-group preference and is primarily concerned with enhancing group fitness and punishing defectors. Leftism is the political expression of high individual preference and bad faith, and is primarily concerned with removing the group’s ability to punish cheaters. You can explain all political activity this way: rightists vote to make marijuana illegal because this punishes social parasites, whereas leftists vote to make marijuana legal.

Elite minorities profess leftism and practice rightism in their private lives because maintaining their position depends on anarchotyranny. Elites must punish parasitism in their own ranks while enabling it in the people they rule, to keep them weak. Hence 1) the war of the elites and the fringes against the middle, and 2) Steve Sailer’s leapfrogging loyalties rule: immigration for thee and a wall for me. It’s not even paranoid to predict that testosterone levels are dropping because the Jews are poisoning the water, it’s actually a straightforward prediction of mainstream moral psychology.

The Daily Shoah guys are about half-right, as always—they think the common denominator in leftism is Semitic anti-Aryanism. But this dynamic is older than whites and Jews.

This divergence in function gives rise to the activities and personality traits we associate with left-wing politics. The leftist overemphasis on the harm/care moral axis, for example, simply correlates with the moral underdevelopment we’d expect from the generally retarded denizens of the lower classes. You’ll please note that harm/care goes right out the window as soon as Donald Trump is the subject of conversation—suddenly leftists are all in favor of drone strikes without oversight. Like the proverbial golden hammer, care/harm is the only thing they know, and all homo politicus ever wanted was to take to the streets and crack some heads.

Ref: Jonathon Haidt’s The Righteous Mind and Anonymous Conservative’s The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics

Posted in Uncategorized | 40 Comments