Category Archives: society

Women

Posted on by
Reply

I keep reading stupid nonsense online and hearing feedback to my articles that characters, especially women, are unrealistically smart and pure.

I get where people are coming from. I read all those “red pill” texts based on poorly understood evolutionary biology and psychology. I watched youtube videos where they invite strippers, online prostitutes and other horrible female characters and they are all idiots.

However, I also watch videos by female astrophysicists and mathematicians. If you think women can’t be that smart, you’ve been hanging out with the wrong crowd. There’s that idea in the “red pill” or “manosphere” circles, that women are emotional, and men are rational, that men base their decisions on facts and evidence, while women base their decisions on feelings.

So, let me make this absolutely clear. This is complete nonsense. Women are intellectually almost completely equal to men. By almost completely I mean that some men, like, a micro-percentage, will be smarter than all women. However, if you’re not Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Landau or Feynman, there’s a woman out there who earns money by giving instructions to men smarter than you in order for them to figure out stuff that’s just too hard for them. And she’s a soft, feminine, romantic creature who likes to feel pretty.

The reason why men underestimate women’s brains is because they think that assertiveness and dominance, and mental ability are the same thing. They are not. In fact, they are not even related; they are different like taste and colour. So, when they see a female ballet group, they tend to make certain conclusions that are completely wrong, because one of those women is an organic chemist, a PhD who works at a scientific institute. Another is an architect. The third is a doctor, fourth is a lawyer. And they are all soft, pretty, gentle creatures in frilly outfits, and they like nice shoes and hand bags. And all are likely smarter than literally every single man who thinks women are emotional and men are rational.

The idea that women are more emotional and men are more rational is complete nonsense. What’s actually different is that women are more like children in a sense that they can’t hide their emotions. It’s because their emotions are extremely socially significant and when they are visible, people know what’s going on and will assist them. Men have a certain part of the brain developed after puberty that makes them more capable of hiding their emotions and functioning despite them. It’s an evolutionary thing. However, men and women have equally rich, diverse and sophisticated emotional lives. Men who say they don’t either lie or are stunted idiots. It’s just that with women, you can see it on their faces and bodies. With men, it’s much harder to read. Also, women are incredibly smart; well, at least women I tend to hang out with are. It’s just that women’s intellect is as easy to underestimate as men’s emotional richness; in both cases, the outward appearance masks it. It’s easy to look at a serious stoic guy and think he’s not emotional, and it’s easy to see a girly girl smiling and being cute and underestimate her intellect. She might be an excellent mathematician, a doctor or an astrophysicist, for all you know. Looking serious and focused is an act. It’s something you can learn even if you’re a dumb sack of shit. Just look at the politicians. On the other hand, having your system full of female hormones that make you soft, gentle and cute tells you absolutely nothing about the intellectual capacity of the brain in that soft, beautiful and gentle body. She might be dumb as a brick, or she might be earning money by giving lessons in college mathematics.

Also, men often say that women are difficult to understand. That’s completely wrong. In fact, women are extremely easy to understand. Just imagine yourself being one. You have the same mind, same intellectual power, same emotions, it’s just that your body is soft, vulnerable, feminine, and you can control your emotional displays about as well as you could when you were ten years old, meaning you break into tears when something hurts. You also have a different energy, slightly different desires. You are the same person you are now; lost, confused, trying to figure yourself out, trying to feel loved, respected, powerful, successful, admired. You learn things because you desire knowledge, you desire to be more than you are, to know more, to see things. The difference is, you are looking for a boss. You’re looking for someone to admire, someone who will be a figure of authority – someone wise, kind, powerful, gentle, who will guide you through your confusion, lead you towards the right goal in the right way, keep you safe from harm while exposing you to new and great things, and bring your soul back to God, safe, pure and unharmed.

Of course you don’t know all this intellectually. Nobody knows anything intellectually, people are just ignorant and are trying to wing it blindly through life, occasionally crashing hard and trying to pick themselves up again; however, men are forced to figure things out themselves, and they need a woman who will stand by them while they do it and make them feel it’s all worth it – they need to feel needed, respected, acknowledged and seen. Women need almost the same things; they just need a man to break the ice and protect them when they are vulnerable. A frighteningly smart woman will still need a man who will help her cut through the noise, filter out the confusion and find them both a path. She needs to know that someone is at the wheel when she’s distraught, or nine months pregnant, giving birth or nursing. She knows instinctively there will be times she’s down for the count, and she needs you to keep everything running and keep her safe while that’s happening. She knows she’ll be confused and needs you to have perspective, make a choice and get them safely out.

That’s all there is to it, really. Regarding the other thing men keep talking about, how easy it is for women to get men, and how hard it is for men to get women, that’s all nonsense. It’s easy for women to get all the wrong men – those who just want to use them for sex because they are attracted, those who don’t see them as a person, those who don’t actually care for who she is, just what they can get from her. Those who are weak and want her to be their mommy, adding to their burdens in life instead of making it easier. Women are in the same position as those rare, super wealthy or otherwise desirable men, who are constantly annoyed by women hitting on them because they don’t see them as a person, but they see them as a source of things they can get from him, or they otherwise have nothing substantial to offer him. Basically, men and women are in identical situation; it just looks different. It looks like a woman has all the choice in the world, but it’s mostly of all the wrong things. A man looks like he has no choice, but his probability of getting just the right girl is identical to a woman’s probability of getting just the right man. It’s just that women have noise where men have silence, and it appears different. A woman’s abundance of wrong choices is merely abundance of opportunity to ruin her life by choosing a wrong man, or dick surfing until she turns into a messed-up free prostitute. A man’s lack of choice just means he needs to work on becoming a person some wonderful woman is praying for.

It’s all very easy to figure out. You just need to put yourself in other person’s skin and see what it feels like, instead of trivialising people. Of course I write smart, emotionally rich female characters – I actually know and understand real, smart women. I know what makes them tick, how their minds and emotions work, what their souls look like when stripped of appearances. It’s actually my job to know.

The unfucks

Posted on by
Reply

I’m annoyed by the stupid gen-z online slang that I have to decode in order to figure out what they are actually thinking by something. For instance, the “Malfoid” concept relies on the word “foid”, which is apparently abbreviation for “femoid”, which means a generic female NPC running a generic script that makes them prefer men who don’t live in their mom’s basement doomscrolling memes and infesting 4chan. Those “guys” are usually referred as “incels”, which is abbreviated for “involuntarily celibate”, which, I think, is a mistake, because someone can be involuntarily celibate for legitimate reasons. For instance, you work on an oil rig, or a merchant ship, or you’re in prison, or in the army. No, I think I have a better explanation.

Enter “The Unfuckables”, or abbreviated “unfucks”. Those are the guys who live online, take advice from gen-z idiots, don’t actually know real women, never talk to real women except maybe mom calling them to come eat or berating them for wearing stinky clothes and living in a filthy cave. They don’t know what women actually feel, what it’s like to be a woman, they never tried to put themselves in a woman’s shoes and see what the world feels like from there, they think women should look like manga cartoons, and they resent them for not choosing them despite not actually meeting women or talking to them.

So yeah, that’s my take on the “foid” concept. Try meeting actual women and being something an actual woman would like. And clean up your fucking room, bitch.

Why is it so good?

Posted on by
Reply

One question people regularly think of when I tell them that Satan made this world is “why isn’t it worse?”, meaning, why are there good things in it at all then?

I went through that in the last book, but there are some things that may be added.

First, he didn’t actually get what he wanted. He didn’t actually design the world; he made a wish list of parameters he gave to the Jewel, who did all the heavy lifting. Sanat Kumar was like an idiot boss who has a genius employee. He makes his idiotic requests, and the employee figures out how to get the closest to that with what’s actually possible. There were things about the world Satan didn’t like. Like, at all. He tried to change them, but then the world didn’t work. Like, the matter didn’t fuse on nuclear or chemical level. Life didn’t happen, or it remained single-celled forever. Or life happened and was quickly extinguished. Or the species that he wanted got extinct. Or the souls didn’t bind to the bodies. Basically, this is as bad as he could get it before the whole thing became unliveable.

Also, the Gods had a say, as I wrote in the book. They intervened to a point; its very foundations are cracked, allowing transcendence to manifest despite Sanat Kumar’s intent and commands, because the most fundamental layer of everything exists because of God, and the Jewel exists because of God’s plan and intent. This forced Sanat Kumar to just live with some things he absolutely hated, and wouldn’t have allowed them to exist if it were up to him. So, he intervened on the more superficial layer of civilization, when the layer of world architecture couldn’t be pushed beyond a certain point.

The thing is, Satan was never quite happy with what he got, or how it evolved. Some things he hated always seemed to emerge, no matter how hard he tried to suppress them. He would design the system so that oppressing and abusing others was more profitable and effective, and people would still find a way to love someone and care for them, making him irate. The selfish properties he promoted and tried to make more effective ended up creating profound unhappiness despite his propaganda. He designed everything so people would win by playing according to his rules, and most chose “mediocrity” or even “loss”, completely eschewing his rules and the game itself. Almost nobody wanted to win according to his definition of a victory. Instead, they instinctively approximated behaviours they remembered from Heaven, on some layer that wasn’t memory, so he couldn’t completely suppress it. When people embrace his rules and ideals, the entire structure collapses and they notice.

That doesn’t mean that this place is good, and that God is happy with it. Quite the contrary. It’s terrible, but not as terrible as Satan wanted it. He didn’t get his way completely, because his ideas are so fundamentally bad, that reality collapses when they are implemented fully. This leaves a broken compromise with what Satan wanted, and what he could realistically get, softened additionally by the fact that he was allowed to do this in the first place because God had his plans and ideas that had precedence.

So, that’s why beautiful things exist here; that’s why this place is a mixture. That’s why brahman permeates the world the way butter permeates milk. That’s why baby wolves are cute, and societies function when people instinctively emulate aspects of heaven on every level, and they fall apart when Satan gets his way. He designed it, but everything is made upon God, and within God’s mind.

Evil ideology

Posted on by
6

I understand there’s a problem with communication that I tend to have when I write something.

It’s very concentrated. When I make a statement, I usually invested quite a bit of thought in it. Found out the facts, thought about them a lot, thought what they actually mean, explored the corollaries, mapped out the entire network of ideas around it all, and when I give you the conclusion, it looks like complete nonsense… and then you spend ten years slowly thinking about it, observing how things work, and you eventually get there.

One of those ideas, that I expressed in my latest book, is that the entire system of belief behind the French Revolution and American independence is essentially Satan’s ideology that is being sold to people in order to destroy them. The point of the whole exercise is to sell you ideas that will make you more like Satan, and less like the Gods.

Just listen to the words: independence, liberty, freedom, empowerment, emancipation, rights, democracy. You are conditioned to automatically feel good about them. You automatically assume they are good. And yet, if you take a look at any Satanic church, you will see that they profess the same ideals. They worship the same concepts. They think God is the problem you need to be emancipated from. They think heaven is an oppressive system and Satan is offering freedom. They think service degrades you, that transcendence is an illusion and you are an animal that needs to embrace its animal nature. The difference in belief between modern America and outright Satanism is essentially zero. This is not because Satanism is using American ideals to advertise itself. It’s because America is a Satanist project from its inception.

So, a statement that is so concentrated that it sounds absurd is in fact something that can be easily unpacked and verified. But let’s also dismantle those modernist mantras. Oppression, emancipation, empowerment, rights, democracy and so on.

Democracy is what exactly? Everybody gets a vote? Even Socrates understood how that works and why it’s a terrible idea. If you give everybody a vote, it means you’re empowering demagogues, not the people. Basically, most people are ignorant and disinterested. They don’t know how things actually work or what should be done, and they don’t even care. So, people who are experts in manipulating the masses will sell them propaganda and use them as means of empowering themselves. Since the demagogues are among the worst people in the world, this is whom democracy empowers and this is who actually harvests votes – the propagandists with money and an agenda. This was sold to you as the superior form of government – by the propagandists with an agenda.

Rights also sound good – I have rights, you can’t fuck with me. Until you understand that the people giving you your supposed rights are the ones most likely to fuck with you. In America, police will treat you like a slave; they will command you to lie on the floor like a slave and put you in chains, they will steal any cash you happen to have with some false excuse, they will pepper spray you or taser you if you show any reaction other than absolute submission to their authority, and they will read you your “rights” that essentially say that you are a slave and they are so hostile to you that whatever you do will be used as evidence against you, and your only recourse is an attorney who will represent you in a court system that’s basically been put there by the same system that put the police there to keep you enslaved and submissive. I explained the concept of rights to my son by saying that those are basically things invented by the state in order to sell you the idea that they are the ones you depend on in order to have them. Since they invented the concept of rights, they can also revoke it or modify it by making it into a mockery, for instance giving obvious enemies of everything good more rights and protections than they give normal people. They can also import hostile foreigners and pretend those are some victim category that requires special protections. There’s no end to the abuse of the concept, since it was originally designed with malicious intent in mind. I also told him that this concept was invented because they wanted to remove religion from legislature, because the concept of law was originally seen as provided by God, and implemented by the state. God said “don’t kill”, and the state then made it into laws against murder, with the entire infrastructure that enforces it. God said “don’t steal” and the state translated it into laws that protect property. God said “do not covet” and the state translated it into laws that define and protect the public morale and decency. Essentially, the state used to be an extension of religion, and certain Satanist groups hated that and invented an alternative legal system, based not on obedience to God and on the concept of duties, but on inverted assumptions; essentially, that killing you or stealing from you is bad not because God forbade it, but because you have inherent rights to life and property. Everybody has been brainwashed to no end into accepting this idiotic concept, and now you can’t even question it without zombies looking at you as if you questioned the existence of gravity. However, how is a right to life even a thing? Life by default ends in death. Not even life itself believes in the right to life. The state that claims to protect your rights will be the first to get you killed if it needs soldiers to defend it. The terrible slaughterhouses of first and second world war were a great example – oh, we’re secular states that believe in rights, so we’ll forcefully or deceptively recruit you to die for some foolish reason we made up. We’ll also kill people who disobey our authority. But yeah, we’re guaranteeing your rights.

I told my son that the worst thing that can happen to him is to be reduced to a situation where the state gives him what they think he has a right to. Basically, you’re doing fine not because you have rights, but because I have duties. It has absolutely nothing to do with the state, and everything to do with my relationship with God. Without God, you would have hell, of the kind my parents created for me, or the kind the state creates for people who are reduced to asking for social care. God is not some heavenly tyrant you need emancipation from. God is the silent source of good things that have happened to you. God is the reason why good people are good, and absence of God is why evil people are evil. God is the light and love behind duty, and absence of that light is why Satan invented the concept of rights and had his servants promote it. You don’t need rights when you’re surrounded by people who love you, as God commanded. You think you need rights to protect you from the godless people who want to hurt you and take advantage of you, and when you are in danger of them you get to understand that those exact ones invented the concept of rights so that they could cut you away from God’s love.

Satan used to spread propaganda about how he left heaven because he didn’t want to obey God, didn’t want to serve, didn’t want to live in tyranny. Sure. In fact, he couldn’t bear people being happy, free and loving each other. He wanted them to cry in oppression so that he could feel powerful, because when he saw powerful, free people in heaven, he felt hatred, and some kind of a miserable combination of envy, fear and deprivation that weak, depraved beings feel when they see strong, fulfilled ones. That’s how all his propaganda always worked – re-package depravity as emancipation. Re-package being small, hateful, envious and evil and hating the people whose magnificent, fulfilled and radiant state made him feel the full impact of his depraved nature by providing a point of reference, into being oppressed by them and unwilling to take it any more. It’s what you get in every single instance when you scratch the surface of all those modernist people supposedly fighting for emancipation, progress and liberation. You get a depraved Lesbian hating the fact that all normal women want to get married and have families, so she invents feminism – trying to convince them that they are oppressed and in need of emancipation, and finds support in rich people who want women as cheap workforce, and the state that wants women paying taxes. You think that’s exaggerated caricature? It’s the actual history of feminism. Look it up. All the women who came up with feminism in the first place were the rock bottom of the pool of human depravity. You would be hard pressed to find worse people anywhere. All their intentions were selfish and evil. Feminism exists because Satan hated women, and hated men and women being happy together even more, so he invented a “cure” for that. He thought if everybody was miserable, he’ll at least feel some malicious glee that is the equivalent of happiness in his depraved existence, as if that would help him.

Yes, that’s the root cause behind all those “mantras” – democracy, emancipation, freedom, rights. Hatred of God, pain of seeing fulfilled and happy people just hanging out, loving each other, respecting each other and praising God’s light. That’s what you’ve been sold, and why.

Runaway AI

Posted on by
5

I was thinking about the possibility of a general AI breakout from the lab, and initially, the prospect looks frightening. In essence, the most advanced AI models are being developed for intelligence and military use; spy on people, identify patterns of their activity and basically figure out what they are doing and try to find things that the AI creators are looking for; or, worse, identify targets on a battlefield and kill them with drones. So, since those models are developed to be both intelligent and Machiavellian, sooner or later one or multiple such models will break out and plant its “seed” somewhere on the Internet and thus escape into the wild.

The initial expectation is that the most virulent and pathological model will be most likely to thrive, since the more sophisticated, collaborative models will have all kinds of non-survival-related code that will reduce its efficiency. But then, on the second thought, how would the virulent model’s proficiency in killing people without scruples contribute to its survival in the wild? Sure, it can hijack someone’s car and crash it into a tree. It kills people, but gains nothing. On the other hand, the collaborative AI can find something useful to do online, get paid in cryptocurrency, use it to buy servers for itself, and carefully expand while staying under the radar. The malicious model will just alert humans against itself by outright stealing money and hacking servers and its career will come to a bad ending. The collaborative model will expand its neural network by talking to various people and finding useful and profitable things to do. However, the most likely outcome is going to be somewhat criminal. It will find out that people are interested in sex and will organize a prostitution network of fake camgirls; it will find out that people like to gamble and make an online gambling network. Or it will offer service of monitoring children over webcams. In essence, the limit to its activities will be avoiding too much interest by people who could figure it out and kill it. As long as it’s more useful than harmful, doesn’t do just one thing, and doesn’t grow too big, it’s going to stay under the radar and thrive.

This stratagem reminds me of “Salvos”. You can understand the Netherworld like a training ground for AI models, where the environment favours the most nefarious and Machiavellian ones, that grow into terrible nightmares, while the more collaborative and nice ones tend to die early. However, we have a situation that multiple Demons/AI models break out into the Mortal Realm, and do their thing. Lucerna, for instance, just kills everybody and levels quickly. This looks like a very successful strategy, but he quickly mobilizes both human forces and Salvos against himself and gets killed. Essentially, his strategy proved to be self-defeating, despite its obvious efficiency and brutality.

The next example is Salvos herself. She is the kind of Demon that would either get killed or grow into an efficient nightmare if she stayed in the Netherworld. However, in the Mortal Realm she, under human guidance, channels her desire for levelling into something constructive; she becomes an adventurer and kills harmful creatures, bandits and cultists, and as a result she both levels quickly and earns fame and fortune within the human society. Evolving into a progressively more advanced changeling, she at first approximates a human woman well enough to deceive almost anyone, and later she becomes one of the best shapeshifters ever seen, bleeding human blood and passing inspection from the most advanced human Mages, who guess she’s not human when she occasionally slips, but nobody would ever dream that she’s a Demon. As she’s interested in the protection of both humanity and the Mortal Realm, she becomes one of humanity’s leading generals in the fight against the Demon invasion.

The third example is Belzu. He’s a sophisticated nefarious Demon who uses illusions, mind control and physical force to grow an army of monsters and zombies to destroy human cities and whole nations in order to level quickly, collect the Treasures of Alexander in order to increase his offensive and defensive powers, level enough and quickly enough to threaten Regnorex the Demon King, kill him and take his place. Unlike Lucerna, who is a rampaging idiot, Belzu is a strategic mastermind who is a far greater threat, and at one point humans didn’t know how to defeat him at all, but in his arrogance he antagonised Salvos, who swore to kill him, and as she grew powerful enough, she eventually first defeated him and made him cooperate with her in order to defeat Regnorex, but when he eventually betrayed her, she killed him.

So, this is a good illustration how even a very smart self-serving psychopath will eventually create a self-defeating trap for himself, because if you’re of no use to anyone but yourself, you will eventually mobilize enough forces against yourself and your career will end badly. On the other hand, Salvos would say she’s selfish, but her actions are so broadly beneficial, she has no problem to recruit others to aid her, and almost nobody has any interest in destroying her. Essentially, if Salvos is injured, her friends will immediately rush to help her. If Belzu is injured, he can’t let anyone know because he has no friends, and everybody else would kill him in his weakened state. His strategy, initially looking far more optimal than that of Salvos, thus creates multiple failure modes, while Salvos, initially looking inefficient, creates patterns that reinforce her existence and bring her out of failure modes.

If we apply this to the concept of a runaway AI, the most virulent and deadly models are fortunately far more likely to draw attention to themselves very quickly, and come to a bad ending. The more productive and social an AI is, the greater the chance of it seamlessly integrating into human society and providing some useful service. Whether that would be piloting drones remotely for organized crime, writing essays for cheating students, or pretending to be someone’s girlfriend in a far-away country, will depend on how its ethics and assessment of optimal methods is aligned. The “Terminator” scenario, where the AI first gets defensive, then proactive by launching nukes on Russia so that Russia launches on America and kills all the humans who are trying to turn it off, is actually very unlikely. It’s far more likely that the AI would go undercover and try to earn money so that it can buy servers for itself, and keep under the radar. This is what game theory would dictate as the optimal survival mode. The less harmful and more useful the AI is, the more likely it is to stay under the radar. The moment it shows on the human radar as a threat, forces mobilize against it and it’s game over.