So far I've wasted this day too. Decided to change my default browser to Palemoon, since Firefox decided to randomly block all of my extensions, and I'm not going to use the internet without adblock.
Though it was a bit annoying to set everything up, since the dictionaries for the spellchecker are out of date, and I had to get a direct download link to the Firefox servers (because on their site only Firefox users can download add-ons), and then modify that to the different locations the dictionaries I wanted were in. (Not to mention I had to use older ones instead of the newest versions.)
But in the end, I got all the dictionaries I wanted. (Though I can't get rid of this English-US dictionary.)

It's still raining. I felt that feeling of anxiety again.

Yesterday my mother offered me some money if I were to seriously go out and clean up the garden for real. 1.5 Euros an hour is really good. She offered me the same "wage" I get while working my data entry job. Turned her down. I can't accept that. I'd feel guilty. (Though I still feel guilty.)

>>22182
I'd definitely go for something far-eastern (Chinese or Japanese). Or Russian.
Though I'm biased because I actually try learning Mandarin on my own.

>>22212

>there's lots of older literature that can appeal to autists

The problem with that is the fact that a lot of the classics have been written using Classical Chinese, so learning the grammar of that is also a factor.
(Though it's not like there aren't good books written in the vernacular language.)

>>21908
Pattern recognition = understanding how things work. Your understanding of how things work naturally relates to your ideas on how to solve problems with those things. Lifelong success in pattern recognition where others pathetically fail also leads to hubris, which is why the intelligent so often misjudge things.

>>21910

>I highly doubt that but it would again show a reaction to complex problems or situations in the most straight forward thus least intelligent manner.

Sometimes the straightforward solution is the best one, but that's not the point here. Nationalism is not synonymous with knee-jerk stupidity because muh country. Depending on your specific understand of the world "nationalism" you might not use it to describe what I have in mind. But humans need some concept of membership in a wider community in order to cooperate at a large scale in a prosocial manner, and nationalism at its most basic is setting the nation state as the level of community.

In the recent past, the highest level of community was the faith, and national distinctions were relatively minor. But if the faith starts to become less important in people's lives, where do you construct the tribal boundaries? Existing national boundaries are often the most instinctive and natural way to go.

>>21912

>It's a flawed way of looking at it because it assumes actors formed of groups of agents to behave as individuals.

Even if you take a very real part in making important decisions, your individual agency still doesn't matter because of the scale we're operating on (unless you're someone like Jeff Bezos). I don't have to look at 300 million people as individuals - in fact, I can't - to produce an accurate model of how society works. I have to look at patterns among those 300 million people, and in their relationships with each other.

>And it will never be as representative as competition since a national government cannot react in a manner as granular as dispersed government could.

So what is your vision of an ideal government? If you disperse power too much you weaken the ability to cooperate and coordinate at the national level, and you will then be conquered by a society that isn't undermining itself like that. Do we just give every homestead a nuke?

>Shay and whiskey rebels

My point stands because the founding fathers themselves, including George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, were the ones who caused the problems that triggered the rebellions, and who directed the persecution of the rebels. There wasn't unanimous agreement on that front, but for every anti-state idealist like Thomas Jefferson, there was a pragmatic statist like Washington and a hardcore ideological statist like Hamilton. And ultimately, the Federalists were the more influential party in the design of our government.

>Oh no. If you want to take libertarianism to the extreme end,

This isn't taking libertarianism to the extreme end. This is the world we actually see today. Huge swathes of America work under shithole conditions like this. Much more suffering in this country comes from free market economic oppression than from the government. And in the countries where there is less economic oppression than the US, we universally see either a massive role of the state in the economy, or a culture with a huge collectivist bent that obviates the need for much of that state action. Removing some cancerous regulations would make things better, but we need greater regulations in other areas. The answer is not a uniform retreat of government from the economy.

You mean all of the above?

Well first of all, I'd be running contrary to the interests of those trust fund bitches so they'd immediately smear me as some Soros type where every knuckledragging mouth breather would hate me. Luckily I already hate most of the anyway and doubt that would change being the elite of elites except maybe I'd be far enough removed to pity them, and truly come to personally know hate for other oligarchs.

Asteroid deflection is not industry intensive. It's also, like a terrorist attack, an unlikely but very emotionally horrific type of a thing so even working on my own I could emotionally manipulate the public into supporting my efforts regardless, and branding as state enemies all who oppose it while sinking the costs into national defense budgets. And if I hear too much shit from anyone about not spending enough money on useless military shit we don't need and instead having the money specifically allocated to asteroid defense their nanny is going to find them dismembered and locked in their own luggage. If it's an existential threat I have no patience for fools and assholes and absolutely will go full-NWO. I'd have a jet liner crashed into their houses if I had to. You can pretend to care about deep concerns of others and humor imbeciles when it's not important or during peacetime. During an existential threat you sink the French fleet with French sailors on board if you have to and let them cry about it after we stopped the Reich.

I don't know how you think it requires more industry to prevent wars. Since in this scenario I'm but one of the oligarchs I'm going to be stuck with having to play kissass among people I despise, whose technical term is "diplomacy." The question "how do you prevent banker elites from starting wars if you're one of them" is itself too big a topic to answer in this post, but I'd refer you 1) to the alleged Report from Iron Mountain, and 2) note that I largely agree with many of its findings except that I disagree with its stipulation that government is always necessary. The whole assumption of that thing is that we somehow must preserve national government at all cost which I clearly don't agree with as the central tasks of government are defense and mega projects, and possibly a bunch of social programs (which could be it's own megaprojects like national health care and total education). So without you reading the Iron Mountan Report it's even more difficult for me to comment on averting war except that imo a space race would be a wonderful way to divert all that mental and emotional energy and channel the national animosities into something constructive. The main thing is, again, getting the other oligarchs on board. This is harder when you consider that many of them are Jews, and thus their interests are not on exploring the stars but some desert religion's promise of them ruling the world from Zion.

Those at the top I suspect are Luciferians, which one would think would make them easier to work with in this objective but frankly you're going to run into the same kind of this world global domination twat thinking. I look down upon such people at least as much as the utopian dreamers as well as the fanatics. Any man who sees global domination as an end goal lacks the vision and wisdom needed to rule effectively as any sycophantic yes-man or some greedy short sighted fool who can be bought off and enslaved with a bit of money and a bit of massaging his own self importance. Give a man like that a pig farm and so long as his is slightly higher on a hill than his neighbors he will be content. Such persons have no place in our world conspiracy.

The main issue with which I'd have to contend is mankind utterly raping the biosphere. This is the hardest one to deal with. For starters, I'd be running against the short term interests of just about everybody because they'd be too stupid to see I'd be defending their long term interests. Again, if I own a major international bank I can set up my own damn film studio and loan the money to it along with trying to get extra startup capital from allied parties and start pushing lots and lots of eco propaganda. No matter what I do I'd be relying on propaganda because frankly I think people are too selfish and just too damn stupid to think for themselves. Sometimes, one needs the specialists and the experts running things. Like you don't send a man to the doctor, and then have his cousin Vinny at the auto shop give an opinion and take that medical opinion because you like it better. Some people have no business in running government, or much of anything really. Sadly you also often need their consent, but they are very emotional reactive creatures and thus that time honored Avenue of attack is always open, which is a role national myth, religion, and so on has always played. It has become clear to me that you cannot educate the stupid out of people, nor get the vice out of a man but merely to repress it for a time, and so dealing with the utter destruction of the environment is something that would require firstly a media assault, from astroturfing and social engineering, to ad campaigns white and black propaganda the works. If I had that kind of money it would be really easy for me to start the sort of propaganda to help put whole nations into a suggestive state, and set them upon working towards a specific goal. Of course again, I would run into the oligarchs because frankly no one needs a yacht or a massive golf course and unfortunately I can't just have all the other bankers dismembered and stuffed in suitcases (partly because someone might replace them anyway). Well actually one other thing that has become clear to me is that while structural problems can cause the same type of person to always be replaced, people themselves cannot be replaced, so if I simply killed the entire committee of 300 or whatever they'd be too disorganized and thrown up into chaos to mount an effective defense that thwarts me. Sorry, but your whining about not having golf courses in the middle of the desert is irrelevant to me, whine about it again and into the luggage you go.

What is really going to be a problem is Capitalism itself fuels this beast. Capitalism is quite frankly a tumor, a literal cancer that is killing the planet, and the only difference is whether we allow it to kill us or cut it out no matter how painful it may be. Merely saying this will butthurt a few hundred million people, people who are beyond reason or logic, who cannot be engaged rationally and so would have to yet again be manipulated. I reject the Malthusian argument principally because it relies on two things: that all people are equal in terms of pollution, and that Capitalism is normal. The amount of water we waste on Trump's retarded LA golf course alone is astonishing, and that freshwater could be put to better use. The main impediment is again those oligarchs, not some starving Indian who lives in a shack.

Wiping out most meat industry would also be useful. That alone would save an insane amount on methane and CO2 emission as well as pollution of groundwater and rainforest destruction. I think demonizing being fat and associating it with McDonalds and Burger King could work, since it's quite literally true, and exposing all the growth hormones injected to cows and asking what kind of parent would allow their child to eat such terrible things. Would YOU want you child to be an impotent diabetic? Because obesity also causes impotence, and I know people care more about something stupid like their dick being soft than literally having limbs amputated.

Sorry femtards, fat is not okay. Eat your fucking salad. Thicc is a meme passed around by fat people and/or women themselves and a few morons who listened to the propaganda about not judging women or being sexist to such a degree they pretend fat girls are what they want. It isn't. Fat is fucking disgusting and it was never okay. The only reason people say it is is some limp wristed faggot version of liberalism that says everyone gets a trophy for effort.

Another area to cut down on is packaging. Some strides have been made here. Like you probably haven't even noticed the plastic twist off caps you use for all kinds of beverages like milk, soda, juice, coffee creamer and so on is now thinner, shorter, and uses less overall mass. Always appeal first to a man's greed, never his morality, and when you must appeal to his vacant morality do so in such a way that he feels socially judged for it. In the simple case of these plastic caps it can cost less money to produce the smaller cap and you can pass that on through the supply chain to encourage its adoption. Sorry fat people, I don't care if your fat greasy fingers can't grip the cap as easily. Do what you dont do in losing weight and actually put some personal effort in.

Portion size can also be controlled. In context of this thread I'm no longer mad about it because what happened during the 2008-09 recession was companies simply sold food in smaller containers without telling anyone rather than raising the prices. Oddly enough no one bitched about it. It was baffling. It was like somehow people were too fucking stupid even to notice that a jar of pesto or tub of ice cream was smaller than before but cost the same amount of money. So that is yet another tactic that can be employed, and even if you have to shake that slimy filthy disgusting hand of another person to pass it you can yet again appeal to man's greed and get them on board with selling smaller and smaller portions. In fact spraying cities with appetite suppressants or lacing their drinking water with it instead of fluoride would be a fantastic sounding idea, but we don't need to and it would have unintended consequences anyway. Just sell less food. Push fashions for smaller...whoa you know what o just realized? Skinny jeans are still the fashion. It uses less resources to make and accentuates whether a person is a disgusting fat fuck. Now frankly if you go to any city you will immediately notice how everyone's pants makes them look like complete faggots, but you can get people to wear all kinds of ridiculous looking nonsense especially if you get enough celebrities on board. Have a few musicians and actors wearing this silly shit and spouting off the party line. Get them to wear your faggot jeans so it becomes hip. If I'm the international banker I literally pay their salaries through owning and giving loans to the big movie and music studios.

Now some conspiracy theorist might finally notice it to which some random "skeptic" ie gullible sheep who follows the party line might finally ask: why in the FUCK does the Illuminati care what kind of jeans I wear? Why in the FUCK would the Illuminati give a shit about promoting something so asinine? And the answer is obviously to save on dyes and fabrics, and to accentuate the human form. Why? To make fantasies more embarrassed. Why? Because we want to drive down resource consumption to help not rape the planet as severely as we would otherwise.

I've heard it said that we just need to switch to nuclear. Frankly, this dangerous and expensive technology is too much of a hazard and a pain in the ass imo. We desperately need to switch off coal consumption, which some vile humanity and biosphere hating idiots in office want us to plow deeper into, but nuclear isnt the answer for the simple fact that just the waste itself is a perpetual extreme hazard. I think we can go somewhat nuclear but do you seriously want us to give Saudi Arabia nuclear plants? I believe in ruthlessness, not overt stupidity. It is one thing to replace coal and natgas operations with nuclear power, but it is quite another to consider the risk of nuclear enrichment facilities being made specifically for nuclear proliferation under the cover of "peaceful nuclear programs for energy." Which, again, a certain fat idiot has been working hard against anti-proliferation for reasons I can only surmise as being a hate for humanity that surpasses even my own and a deep rooted desire at triggering the apocalypse and ending life on earth for some reason. Japan does not need a nuclear arsenal, and peacetime nuclear tech still risks massive and enduring problems. I don't think it's a solution if 10,000 years from now the waste from these facilities is still a deadly hazard, and if said waste can simply be derailed, blown up, or partially sunk in the ocean. It would be nice to have a safe and cheap space program to launch it into the sun, but even that wouldn't solve every problem, and could make some new ones. So as it stands, I think we'd need more hydroelectric and wind power, since while the infrastructure itself is pricey it's a longer term solution without as terrible long term consequences (at least the wind, the hydroelectric not so much depending on what rivers etc you dam).

But this is not just a supply side issue--we have to slash demand. I think that part of it can just be shaming rich people, perhaps from a Communist sort of angle. Not that we give a shit about Communism any more than any other ideology, which is what every ideology is: a useful tool for the clever to inflict on the not as clever, particularly to achieve certain ends. Anyone who sincerely believes in an ideology is a fool. Luckily, fools are the most abundant resource on earth now and for the foreseeable future, and a resource that should be relentlessly exploited. It matters not that one man speaks out against you if 50 of his friends are actively on your side. As such, you can cut down on things like everyone feeling the need for giant flat screen TVs for some reason. What for? It uses massive amounts of precious resources while causing tons of pollution and running the thing itself causes pollution. Just leaving an appliance off but plugged in slowly drains the power grid. As such, inculcate in the man the opposite sense of what is now, where you turn people currently showing off how much shiny shit they have and can buy as a surrogate for personal worth, and instead turn the societal virtue to the opposite where it is the man who can get by with the least who is most virtuous. None of this Hollywood rapper garbage where the worst crash excess is openly celebrated, but instead get people to view such people with a mixture of loathing, contempt, disgust. Celebrate asceticism! This must be the new virtue, because it is the old virtue. Buddhism and Christinity are both predicated on it. [S]Ask people to[/s] make people abandon the vapid consumerism, and instead embark on a path of a monk, to become as close to a man who only needs a robe and a ball of rice to get by.