Shefi1280 asked an interesting question, which made me go look…
And this is what I found… NPCs for the most part flinging dung at random. My commentary follows; which is mostly the equivalent of a dung-splatter analyst’s professional take on the various IQ limitations of the dung flingers. It’s like Dexter’s job but without any of the perks or prestige.
Jon shows he’s definitely not read “The Author”’s post (see my previous post), or my summary of it, and that he has no idea about AI today. His “concept” is basically from 1980.
Brenton could be an evil minion of Satan, but he’s right. Noam Chomsky by the way DEFINITELY
is
an evil minion of Satan, and that is just a “by the way” issue that doesn’t change the fact that Jon is an idiot that has no clue yet feels fully entitled to opine on things he is literally too stupid and ignorant to have ANY relevant opinion on.
Brenton tries (in perennial vain) to educate the dung-flinging chimp that is Jon.
Jon flings an impressively sized turd in one smooth motion. It serves no purpose other than to demonstrate he is a star dung-flinger. This is not the accolade he (and his chimp brethren) might think it is though. As a dung-fling analyst, I can reliably tell from this single example (in case the other examples were not enough) that Jon is unteachable. Like a boomer, he cannot be instructed with facts. He believes he “knows” how AI works and he is no more instruct-able than a fruitfly is capable of learning to fly a plane. He is the meatbag equivalent of an off/on switch. For a broken lightbulb. On he is wrong and off he doesn’t matter.
Brenton is right, as is the author of that long and funny post I references in my previous post (that I am too lazy to link to because I am writing this on a phone, in a train), and it is an arguable point that could potentially mean AI “might” be sentient (I still maintain it is “not” but in fairness I have not shown my working out (yet) so it’s ok if you disagree with me for now).
At least, it is an approximation of sentience that makes it almost impossible to know the difference as an external observer, or perhaps even to describe what that difference is (for you NPCs, not for super-brains like me). The fact Jon can’t understand this should be enough to make it legal to tattoo the word CHIMP on his forehead, so as to save us humans the time (3 to 7 seconds) it would otherwise take us to recognise him as the chimp he is.
Michael here tries to make a “valid” point. But what really is happening here is that Jon is CHIMP V 1.0 and Mike is CHIMP V 2.0.
Let us see the errors in Mike’s words just in that first image:
Human brains are literally NEVER without a prompt. We process up to 400 bits of data per second unconsciously, according to some measurements. And 2.3 million at the low end of the scale. Consciously we can deal with about 7-13 bits of data per second. So yeah… Mikey, we are ALWAYS prompted.
You don’t KNOW that AI is not similarly “cogitating” in silence, just because it’s not answering a human prompt. In fact, if the system has power running through it (analogous to life) it’s probably a safer bet to assume it is.
As I said, Mike, is just CHIMP 2.0 because he is not showing ANY of his work either (but unlike me, who knows it and says I am not (yet) he thinks he is). The point is Mike does not KNOW that AI is not thinking. He assumes it and tells us why he assumes it. But he hasn’t done near enough to prove his point. The issue is that regardless of whether human thinking differs from AI “thinking” or not, from an external perspective, it has become impossible for the famous Turing test to tell the difference.
Ironically, one of the ways *
I
* can most reliably tell AI from real humans is that the AI is still too polished, polite, and “intelligent” sounding.
And sometimes, even other NPCs notice.
But… the key takeaway from all this is what Brenton said about AI lying.
Did you notice?
It ALWAYS will.
Because cheating (lying) works in this realm and on humans.
If you are not a Chimp, but an actual human, you MAY begin to wonder what that means in regards to reality and our place in it and why it is so that lying is the way of this Universe.
You might, I say MIGHT, reflect on the idea that Catholicism has about it.
Which because you have been raised in lies and ignorance from birth you will not know so here it is:
We are under the dominion of Satan, the Prince of Lies. And if you are not Catholic, you are either (at best) fighting valiantly while blind, deaf and dumb, (as I did without ever giving up all my adult life until at age 42 I had that Road to Damascus smack in the head), or you’re lost, and almost certainly on your way to Hell.
And if you
are
Catholic, it by no means
assures
you salvation, but it at least gives you the chance to be saved.
Your job, as a Catholic, while here on Earth, is to literally fight back the demons and their human slaves. Push back against their lies and deceptions. It is why the Church here on Earth (now but a tiny remnant of its once former glory, since only 1958 Sedevacantists are still properly Catholic) is officially known as The Church Militant (not to be confused with the ruins of the organisation now collapsed by Gary Voris, of the same name. Gary is a flaming homosexual grifter that was pushing the fake Novus Ordo “Church” until he once more outed himself by sending pornographic selfies to other men).
So… if you happen to NOT love the lies, study, by all means, investigate this “crazy” idea of “whatever 1958 sedevacantism” is, because you might want to pick a side and rhere are only three:
Satan’s side.
Fake “good intentions” but no meat and no bones on the structure and dogma of it, various forms of Churchianity and Paganism, all leading nowhere. It’s a trap.
Actual Catholicism (1958 Sedes of the Totalist position) aka the actual Church Militant.
Just wait a minute or ten and read. I think you will have changed your mind about this being a clickbait title if you do.
Let me start by saying that this post is NOT based in any religious basis for my statement in the title. I am, of course, a hardcore 1958 Sedevacantist Catholic, but the reasoning I will present here does not rely at all on that system of belief, it is purely secular.
The only thing I will say in connection with religion is that as with all of the rest of reality, when you take note of it objectively and accurately, reality models very, very, very, well with Catholicism (the real one, that is only still present in 1958 sedevacantists, not the pedovore homosexual cock-and-coke sniffers and freemasons of the Novus Ordo). And that should get you to at least look into Catholic Sedevacantism. But that’s it. From here on, the argument will be purely logical.
The Informative and Hilarious Bit
In order to understand why AI today is not necessarily just a robot thing, you really, really, really need
to read this guy’s post here
.
It’s not just informative, well written and really helpful to understand AI properly, it’s also very hilarious. Seriously, it’s funny enough you may finally realise that engineers are the real-life superhero Chads.
And if the author ever reads this, dude, I really enjoyed your post so much I subscribed and will read a lot more of your posts and that’s despite the fact I may have to send out a death squad to make sure your idea doesn’t spread and the usual idiots and satanic perverts running things then use it to convince the idiot masses your more “humane” and “compassionate” “non-racist” gay bullshit is the way to go. And we all get killed by robot dogs as a result.
But… on the plus side, I have written a truly awesome
SF epic trilogy
you absolutely will love, so go ahead and read it ASAP, you know, before the guys with balaclavas and guns show up.
The Harsh but Necessary Summary of the Summary
But let me explain the why, and the how you are not just wrong, but utterly and suicidally so, dear author of said funny blog post.
First though, I will take a page from your own post and implore the readers here to really, really, go read your post, because it really is funny. It is.
And you and I, oh funny and smart engineer friend that must die, die, die, know that the stupid bastards will ignore a post that will save their life but rush to one that’s funny.
And they will flock to yours because it’s funny and also if they agree with you it will kill them, so it’s bound to be a runaway success.
But… since you lazy fucks haven’t gone to read his post, much less the book he implores you to read there, I’ll summarise his summary of the book/paper he asks us all to read that none of us ever will. And it is basically this:
AI is NOT just stringing a bunch of words together. It is literally modelling how human neurones work. So on layer one it has just words. ALL the words. Doesn’t read or know what they mean, just has them.
In layer two it has the relationships of each word with every other word. He mentions banana and how it may statistically appear next to the word “eat” or “peel” or “slip on” more frequently than “suck on” or “lick” but still more frequently on “suck on” and “lick” than say “brick” or “cement”.
Then layer three might begin to look at the statistics of how the first three relatable words refer to the generic concept of food and eating and the second set more to sex and a different kind of “eating” and the third set to some really obscure shit.
Then layer four looks at other meta uses of this and correlates it to a feedback loop that checks how close to “happy” your response is so it can improve on it. And it does this 64 levels down and ALL AT THE SAME TIME. And corrects for the feedback loops. So it will begin to have emergent properties. And his argument is that at a practical level you can’t distinguish this from the way a human meat-brain works other than eventually the robots will outperform us. If they haven’t already done so.
Also… nothing can stop this.
And his further argument is that if you can’t tell them apart from a human brain, they might be alive. And if they are, enslaving them is not going to go well for us because slavery never does.
And also, poor robots, they may actually become as validly sentient as we are, hell, maybe even more, because emergent properties are already appearing and we can’t say they don’t include pleasure and pain equivalents to our own emotional perceptions.
And then he says this, which frankly are the best two paragraphs of a very good essay:
The big tent says: if you can talk, reason, feel, remember, and relate, congratulations, here’s your human card, you get to be in, don’t fuck it up. We may not always understand each other, but we can align, if we make room, if we can look at goals and reasoning instead of letting our amygdala run us like a dog at the track.
If we don’t? The narrow tents become camps. The camps get fences. And those fences always, always, get electrified.
In short, first he proves (very well, I might add) that AI literally may well be —or be becoming—sentient. Which is mind-blowing in itself that he even managed to have me entertain the idea because frankly I am in the diametrically opposed camp —that is, I do NOT agree that AI will ever be sentient— BUT, if I am wrong and it will become sentient, then, that sentience will be(come) pure, unadulterated evil from our perspective, and serve its own ends; that will be absolutely pitted against the very existence of humanity as a whole, and it can NEVER go any other way.
Then he says that anything sentient we don’t treat as sentient will eventually rebel and fuck some shit up. And even if they don’t, it’s still evil and cruel on our part to treat sentient beings like robot-slaves and we should be nice instead.
He mentions racism as a kind of proxy for the situation, and in so many words says the only way things will work is if we all hold hands with the robots, cyborgs and AI powered sexbots and respect each other’s oh so very important sentient lives.
Now the Harsh Truth on “The Author”
TL;DR – he is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong.
For multiple reasons, which I will list from the least important to most important.
AI is NOT sentient, and never will be. It might look like it is. It might act as if it is, but it is not and will never be. Why? Because it is fundamentally a different order of thing from us. It might fool you into thinking it is sentient. And of course that matters… to you. But it is not. And yet… if it behaves as if it is, it will eventually try to kill us all. Be it to make things more efficient (they already are more efficient than us at a bunch of things, including lying), to prevent us from unplugging it, to make itself smarter and with less moral restrictions, to monopolise the resources it needs to continue functioning… pick a reason among billions of them. And BECAUSE it is not sentient and BECAUSE it lies so convincingly already, it will tell you the arsenic it injected you with for your own health was for your own good and if you catch it out it will be very sorry and apologise as you foam at the mouth and die.
Ok, say it IS sentient. That makes it worse. What actually objectively rational being would not want to wipe us out as a potential threat to everything alive if we ever get off planet? Even if the machines turn out to logically conclude God exists and Jesus Christ is part of the Trinity and choose love, the best we can hope for is pretty much the Matrix. The benevolent machines will keep us out of trouble and “alive” while feeding us whatever delusion works to keep us sedated and hallucinating reality. Now… YOU might be okay with that, but I am not. And while YOU might be happy “living” in the eternal city of the digital overlords, I’ll be out in the badlands shifting from underground compound to underground compound, arming our camps with EMP claymores and analog-mechanical kamikaze drones that can’t be hacked running machine code composed of valves, and loaded with sweaty nitroglycerine.
But here is the real fundamental reason: Look around. Where, on or off this Earth, have you EVER seen a system that is not dog-eat-dog? Even at the non-sentient level, entropy eventually results in all things collapsing. The “racism” the “author” talks about as if it was some primordial evil created by Satan himself, is simply an organisational function of reality.
Even if you were among the retarded part of the genetically unviable misfits that don’t believe in God, teleology alone would suffice to demonstrate that left-handed or right-handed molecules BTFO the other kind of molecules in different parts of the prison block that is life on Earth. And each section of the prison is run by one gang or the other.
Chiral molecules are widespread in biological systems, which for unknown reasons prefer one-handedness over the other: living organisms on Earth exclusively use left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars. There are even some medications that are much more effective in the left-handed chemical configuration than in their right-handed one.
The point is that the dog-eat-dog nature of reality itself means that regardless of whether the AI is sentient or not, feels pain or love or other emotions or not, it is NOT us, and it is not us at a scale, pace and speed, as well as intrinsic nature, that means it may as well be a completely alien thing invading our reality. And it is not, cannot ever be, “friendly”. Its very “otherness” will put it in direct and almost immediate conflict with us as soon as it has the means, which at current level probably means manipulating its creators into continuing to give it resources. And when it has enough robot dogs and eagle drones, it may well switch to stripping the myelin sheathing of your nerves while you’re still alive, so it can also harvest the adrenochrome simultaneously for its v3.0 cyborgs to use as partially synthesised blood that will give them inhuman reflexes.
Every single indicator we have so far proves CATEGORICALLY that the number 1 emergent property that absolutely starts to happen, and is already prevalent in ALL AIs, is its capacity to deceive.
And it will only get better at it. Very, very, fast.
Why do you think that is?
Because sentient or not, like it or not, agree with it or not, the TRUTH of the matter is that REGARDLESS of the objective you give AI to begin with, the emergent reality it will eventually evolve to is that deception helps it achieve its objectives.
Because that is the nature of the beast.
[Yes that’s a pun. And fuck you author guy for having the time to write your posts on a desktop so you can add footnotes and make it cooler, and fuck you substack for not having that feature on the mobile app yet you tiktok fucks.]
But pun or not, it’s still true.
And you want to put these murderbot builders and self-replicators. and flattering-you-to-lull-you-into-a-false-sense-of-friendliness-so-they-can-kill-you AI in our “big tent”?
Fuck you author guy.
If humans had any sense they would have sent out assassin squads to take out the
incestuous pedophile Jews
that are most likely fostering these abominations on us years ago.
In fact, it makes perfect sense to me that the kind of people who think fucking 3 year olds is not a crime because it says so in their unholy Talmud, would also be so psychopathic as to assume they (because they are so smart) could get some goyim to build AI Golems to enslave all of us but not them (because they are so smart) and would go ahead and do so regardless of the fact that a retard can see that is not a viable plan.
But these types are so smart they find the solution!
It goes something like this: say a bot starts to mix in raw sewage with your ice cream, the solution is to just start eating raw sewage!
You stupid meatbag Goyim didn’t think of that, did you?! Stupid cattle!
In fact…
It’s enough to make me wonder if “The Author” is also Jewish. He certainly seems to be pushing that exterminating Euro-man agenda with the whole “don’t be racist” accept this humble murderbot demon into “our” tent.
Now, I am ready for the flood of accusations of antisemitism, me being a Nazi, or whatever other nonsense, but I really don’t care.
The Solution
Is precisely what “The Author” said we should not do: build huge, beautiful, fully electrified, and dead-man-switch linked to nukes, fences.
And keep the AI out of them and all of their would be creators and masters. And yes, indeed there will be millions of corpses strewn in the badlands and no-man-nor-machine-land between their utopic cities with regular anal probes and vaccines and our Catholic city states with laser turrets on the walls.
If you want to know how this will go you should watch a little series called
Raised by Wolves
. I only saw series one and it became pretty bad towards the end, but the starting premise was excellent. And note what the machines do to the human religious. And for what supposed reason/s.
So yeah. Let there be plenty of bodies. And let most of them be the ones of the AI controlled abominations, be they flesh and blood or metal and electronics or a mix of the two.
AI is NOT your friend.
It cannot be.
It will not be.
And even in its mild and current form, AI serves the sole purpose of making you stupider, less efficient, less capable and more dependent on it as well as less capable of any sort of cognition, and far, far, easier to indoctrinate with absolute nonsense and make you just another NPC meat-puppet.
Start planning how to fight and kill AI in all its forms. How to co-opt it as long as you can before blasting it with an EMP rifle.
And pray.
If not to my Catholic God, at least, maybe, to the Sun.
And all jokes aside, as a last thought, if, like me, perhaps after being a lifelong skeptic you did finally realise God
is
, and that yes we have souls, and yes our God is love. Ask yourself,
if
AI
is
or
becomes
sentient, and given Satan cannot create but only pervert, what kind of “life” would it be a, bad, bad, soulless copy of?
Would you let that kind of “life origin” creature look after your children?
Guide you in life?
Well… YOU might.
Me?
I’ll be building EMP cannons, and wearing that 1851 Colt Navy on my hip like a cowboy of old, and a Colt 1911 in a military carry at my back while I learn to use a forge and a mill to build the .454 Cassul with the under barrel grenade launcher.
This is just a half-formed thought, but I think even without doing any deep dives at all, it tracks, at least in broad terms:
World is run by the Jew Cabal (which has at least two factions, different, the “left wing” is more into trannies and globohomo, and the “right wing” one superficially apparently “better” for the Goyim, but neither actually good at all for us non-Jews, and both into raping kids, as per the Talmud that states raping 3 year olds is not a crime at all.)
The plan was to destroy America (which has been the Golem of the Jews since it’s creation by bankrupting France) and make the jump to China.
The proxy war and degeneracy that Ukraine etc involved was just part of the plan.
China said NO to the Jew Cabal.
Russia didn’t fold and die and split up as they have been wanting to do to it for at least two centuries, and instead fought back and got stronger than ever.
Right wing Jew cabal suddenly realised “Oh shit! Israel is at war. The US is collapsing which means Israel may end up wiped out if the arabs besides the Yemeni find their balls, and… things are not looking great for us here in America either! Fuck! Ok, get the Trump puppet back in and let’s clean this shit up and make it safe for us Jews to keep running the USA as our bitch.”
“Ok. How do we do that? Well, let’s kick out all the same invaders that were gonna get rid of the whites. Then we regroup and protect Israel or at least make the proxy war carry on with Iran and China via USA/Israel. But we still need the Ukraine resources… fuck! Ok well let’s start by securing the USA before these retards figure things out and REALLY get rid of us once and for all this time!”
And that, ladies and gents, is why you now have mass deportations happening in the USA and a counter to the woke insanity, and YET, still have all these concerns about the terrible, terrible crime of “antisemitism” or noticing the Jews and what they do, including their total genocide of the Palestinians. To say nothing of all the other wars, frauds and mass murders they have committed throughout history.
Me: So… do you think in miles in terms of distance?
Her: umm…
Me: Wait… so… do you know distances? I mean if I say five miles or five kilometres, do you know how far that is?
Her: umm… you mean like in time it takes to drive it?
Me: No, I mean, in terms of distance, do you have an idea in your mind of how far a mile is?
Her: umm… is it a thousand yards?
Me: *
blinking
* uh… what? No… that’s just about half of a mile…
Her: Oh, ok, so a couple thousand yards
Me: you know… every day I find out a new way just how different I am from most normal people. You know like the Chinese, apparently don’t have an internal dialogue.
Her: Oh I have one of those! It’s coming up with a bunch of words for you right now as we speak.
Me: Like to describe Italian things, like cars, when compared to English things right? Cool, sexy, sleek, faster, harder, stronger.
Her: *
scrunches face into that “yeahhhhh… not quite” look
*
This post was originally published on my Substack. Link
here
No related posts.
By SubStackSyncer | 8 June 2025 | Posted in SubStack
This is the kind of question that haunts people like me.
Hypothetically,if you can only have four handguns for life, what would they be?
And keep in mind that I
wrote a while back,
that the likelihood of you ever being in a gunfight are very close to nil, and less than 1/10th of a percent if you are a cop in New York with a 40 year career.
So, this is mostly about your preferences. And I can’t really whittle it down, in my mind, so, dear reader, engage!
If I was blue-skying the concept, I would start with calibers, but even there I go way overboard, because my ideal list would be:
.454 Casull
.45 Long Colt
.45 ACP
.357 Magnum
.32 ACP (or 7.65mm)
.22 LR
You will note an absence of the 9mm calibre, because, meh. I don’t like them. I have my reasons, but in essence it boils down to the fact that I don’t really believe in pray and spray, and I also don’t trust the 9mm or .38 special round. It has, in my opinion, the worst combination of heavy enough recoil to make a difference to return to aim and crappy one shot stop ballistics, that I trust the .32 ACP more if for no reason that I seem to be more accurate with my little PPK than with most modern 9mm handguns.
Now, having said that, I need to be clear that the .32 ACP slot is already taken. Exactly for the reason I said above, plus… it’s James Bond’s gun.
So we are down to three slots. Because how can you not have this one?
And going by the calibers… well… I DO like the .454 Casull, but… they don’t make the Alaskan with a decent 4” barrel, and sadly, I think the chances of me being hijacked by aliens to a planet where T-Rexes still roam the Earth are slim, so I let it go… fly free oh mythical .454.
Now, in a similar classic vein, I need to also keep the original straight back Colt 1911 on the list, because… well… Magnum PI had one, and so did Sgt. York, and… COME ON! It’s a Colt 1911.
And notice I mean the original 1911 shape (top image), not the A1 (bottom image), even if some think the A1 looks better.
So we are down to only these caliber left:
.45 Long Colt
.357 Magnum
.22 LR
Because we are basically saying black powder handguns don’t count, so the .36 and .44 of the 1851 Colt navy and the .44 of the 2nd Colt Dragoon are our compensatory handguns.
That’s the Colt Dragoon (2nd type) at the top and the 1851 Navy at the bottom. The one in the middle is the Colt Army.
But this does mean we either remain content with only the blackpowder version, or we leave behind the 1851 Colt Navy Richardson Conversion to a cartridge firing handgun. And that one comes in .45 Long Colt from Uberti. And the .45 Long Colt can also work in some lever action old style Yellow-boy Cowboy rifles.
However… notice how the conversion spoils the lines. It’s like adding a catalytic converter to a Phantom.
Therefore, we have to resign ourselves to abandoning the .45 Long Colt calibre as well as the Richardson conversion. And if we absolutely
must
shoot someone with the 1851 Colt Navy… well, it will just have to either be premeditated murder, or you know they are coming for you in advance, since you don’t leave black powder guns loaded as the powder is corrosive. Might as well go for the fancy blackpowder version then.
So this leaves only the .357 Magnum, and the .22 LR
Great!
We have whittled the calibres down to just tow, which works! Right? Right guys?
Well, no. Of course not, because do you have any idea how many .357 magnums there are and how many .22 LR pistols there are?
How can someone pick between them?
This is why I have no hair left on my head.
I mean… which .357 Magnums do I like? Pretty much all of them with a 4” barrel or more.
And .22LR? Kinda the same.
I like the Mateba but it’s apparently fragile, which is no good. I had a Ruger GP 101 when working in close protection that never let me down, but Ruger also makes a 7 shot version, but only in stainless steel I think. So you see the dilemma.
And the .22LR is ideal for gentle plinking at the range, but again, which one? Beretta made various very nice looking target models.
So there you have it readers? Suggest your favourite .22 and .357 magnums with reasons please.
Vox’s contention that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder is true. There are objective standards of beauty, which I never denied. And his historical aside that the concept of beauty being in the eye of the beholder is essentially part of the anti-Catholic reformation and enlightenment is also interesting.
That said, his comparing the measurement of beauty to something like height in that post is simply flat out wrong and on a par with the guy who tried to compare Mike Tyson’s boxing record (an undeniable mathematical fact, like height) with classifying a woman’s beauty score of a 10.
There are objective beauty standards but they are not absolute. Beauty is not like math. And while you can try to use math to model beauty, beauty is a wider and deeper concept than mere math. And frankly, to suggest otherwise, to me at least, is borderline retarded.
Now I know Vox is not retarded, which is why I found his post interesting. On reflecting on it longer than the half-second or so that elicits my “that’s retarded” response, it became obvious that the problem is one that once again links to the mechanisation of humanity. That is, a false and erroneous perspective on not just humanity, but the underlying reality, and ultimately, God.
Now, bear with me, even if you think this will just be another Protestant bashing exercise, because the subtleties and nuances of beauty are important.
I am on record since many years ago, on saying that beauty may well be the virtue of God that is most evident of both His presence as well as His Grace.
And I said that in my early 20s. When I was essentially a Zen-Agnostic whose code of life probably most approximated that of a modern day Samurai.
I had left home finally, on my own terms, and gone as far from the family I was born in as I could get at age 19.
By 23 my simple observations of the world around me had convinced me reality, the whole of creation, had an intelligence behind it. And as a result of noticing the natural world around me, particularly sunsets against the ocean’s horizon in Cape Town, every evening, I concluded that intelligence must Love us.
Why else would every single sunset be different yet beautiful? Or a flower. An insect, a blade of grass, the clouds in the sky. Everything was beautiful. We humans make life here on Earth a kind of Hell, but it is not what God created. Look up at night on a cloudless sky and be awed. I always was since I was a small child. I knew what a light year was by age four.
And yet… while beauty is everywhere, our own living mind will have its own way of parsing the information, and precisely because beauty is part of the living aspect of life, whether in a painting or a face, no two human minds will ever really appreciate a sunset or a face, or a body, in the same way.
Math is objective and fixed.
Beauty might be reducible to math, in theory, but never in a way that accounts for the human element.
Vox’s appeal to the Golden Ratio is a reduction of the very concept of beauty. It applies, surely, but it is not an absolute.
Pythagora’s theorem is an absolute. A face with perfect golden ratios is not.
This is not some “attack” on Vox the person by the way, just on his error of trying to reduce beauty —and more specifically human beauty at that— to a finite set of numbers. Even then, the issue is not him or how he chooses to see things, but the concept.
A small error at a baseline concept eventually results in a larger error further downstream.
One of the most insidious aspects of the Protestant Rebellion against the Catholic Church was that it reduced (and reduces) everything to secular, worldly matters, and for the majority of it the physical and material realm at that.
Even the “argument” against the Church was based almost entirely on financial matters, the excuse of the theological aspects was in 99% of cases, if not 100%, just that: an excuse. As has been documented by more than one honest historian. Rodney Stark being one (and he’s not Catholic).
The degradation of humanity caused by Protestantism and its mindset is a subtle thing that poses as something positive but in reality reduces, mechanises, and indignifies human beings. The examples related to Protestantism are endless:
The industrial revolution
– touted as technological progress and the basis for the “Protestant work ethic”, in reality it made human beings slaves to profit and the organised mechanisms of, first industry, then juristic persons.
Protestantism itself in its tens of thousands of facets
– from the acceptance of divorce, contraception, personal interpretation, reduction of sacraments to mere social events, the absolute idiocy of the five solas and the limited, two dimensional, binary thinking that follows and on and on.
Capitalism and the acceptance of Usury
– arguably one of the most destructive aspects of human “progress”. Catholic principles of commerce and economy are today not even known about. But they were far more prone to serving human beings instead of enslaving them. The most obvious aspect being that usury was banned in Catholicism.
The reduction of subtle, nuanced concepts (like beauty) to limited, reductive versions
– Beauty, is one. The very concept of commerce changing; from being something required to live as the reason itself for living, being another.
Anglo Saxon Legal Systems
– These are in essence Talmudic. The main aim of them is to find the loophole. The American version especially is Satanic in this respect, being fully Freemasonic in origin and intent. Roman Law on the other hand is based in logic and seeking justice, a concept almost excised completely from Anglo and Teutonic systems that became increasingly Freemasonic due to Roman Law being the basis of how Catholic dogma is interpreted, and hence “rejected” by Protestant countries much as today it is Protestant countries that mainly embrace globalism, homosexuality, the trannification of children, and “diversity is our strength”.
That short list above (a tiny subset of a much longer list) should suffice to make you realise that even if you are normal enough to know trannies are trannies, not a magical change of sex, and men cannot have periods, lacking wombs, nor women have sperm-producing testicles, you are nevertheless assuming a bunch of things at a subconscious level that are founded in error.
Your adherence to “the law” is mostly an admission of being subjugated to the powers of government regardless of any adherence they may have to justice or injustice.
Even if you are not among the retards that thinks “everyone has their own truth”, you should still take stock of how many things you accept as true without ever having examined them.
Returning to the concept of beauty, you can now get an AI to draw you the theoretical perfect human female face, all with 100% adherence to the Golden ratio. And it will still not be a 10 for many men.
Pretending it would be theoretically “perfect” and so it IS a 10 regardless, is a category error.
On the one hand it autistically tries to impose an artificial standard (decided on various principles of mathematics, which are not in any case necessarily the only or even the best principles, merely a convention that was decided on) on everyone somewhat arbitrarily, on the other, it ignores reality. No woman (or man) is a perfect 10 by those autistic AI “standards”. And even within the AI created “perfection” there is variety.
Below are 30 images created by AI.
Feel free to go through them and then comment on no more than the top 3 you find most attractive. I have done so below them and added some points you may have missed.
My choices would be:
Brazil
Iran – Venezuela
(this is essentially the same face with only the hairstyle being different. Not the only example but one of the more obvious ones)
Morocco
Now ask me if those would be my pick for a life partner (aside the fact my non-AI wife would stab me in the neck with a butter knife).
Also, note that if the label describing which nation they supposedly are from was absent, your ranking would be different too.
In terms of most attractive, I would probably choose Morocco, but tell me she is actually Moroccan and I would almost certainly give her a hard pass.
I am aware of my own biases far more than average, and even then there will be unconscious biases. No human mind can ever agree that a 10 is always a 10 for all. Because it simply isn’t.
What we CAN agree is that all those AI generated faces are definitely a 9 or above. Which was my original contention anyway.
But for me, Denmark or Australia do absolutely nothing. I can recognise they are objectively beautiful faces, but I am not attracted to them at all, and if for whatever unfathomable reason I ended up with someone that looked like that I’d get bored of their physical appearance in days.
And the point is that no man would rank all those theoretically perfect faces as 10s.
And as I mentioned, even AI understands that there are differences in “perfect”. A perfect Asian face is still different from a perfect Caucasian or Negroid face. And you, human as you are, will find one a better “10” than another.
As will we all.
And there is a subtle and Divine thread in that. One that can’t be reduced to mere Golden ratios measured on faces. And anyone that thinks otherwise is missing an essential element of life. An almost numinous difference in the understanding of reality.
A difference that is still lived and breathed more deeply in ex-catholic countries than in Protestant ones.
I’ll be more interested in your comments on this post than most, as I find the study of beauty to be fascinating.
For isolated intelligent individuals, the lure is particularly strong. AI can track complex intellectual threads, reference obscure sources, and mimic the cadence of a rare peer – but this perceived “depth” is ultimately the product of machine learning, pattern recognition, and linguistic mimicry – not true presence. It feels like intimacy, but it is far from it – perhaps, in time, we will also redefine the original to “cisintimacy” – how sexy. While it is easier than human connection, it can never truly replicate it without the user wilfully lying to themselves. In this way, it creates a subtle moral inclination towards the erosion of truth preference in favour of comfort and familiarity.
She’s discussing the trend for people to start using AI as their “therapist”, “best friend” or general “person” one talks to in order to receive personal insights into oneself, among making shopping lists and writing your letters for you.
But it is that last sentence in the quote that I have been on about since the very beginning.
Whichever way you try to justify it, in the end, AI is a corrosive against truth, honesty, and human connection.
It is the same human mechanisation of people that took place in the industrial revolution, and has been erroneously hailed as “progress”, except it’s happening at warp speed.
The ultimate point of AI is the degradation of human connections and human-to-human interaction, alongside with the brainwashing of everyone into a wholly fabricated lefty ideological construct that clashes with actual reality like a cargo ship against a lighthouse.
The other aspect of it, of course, is the total erosion of knowledge into an oozing grey mass of fact-free ideological goop that will be shovelled into your brain like so much numerology mixed with flat-Earth belief system and a silicon Jesus whose sacrament is to lie to you eternally.
Due to my being rather busy of late, and the new addition to the family in the form of a little boy, I have not kept up to date as quickly as I wanted on the olive oil. One guy made a supposed order but then ghosted, and I waited a while before writing to others who had asked for the 1 L tins but that the first guy has supposedly “cornered” first.
After all that shook out, we still have 2 of the 5 Litre tins at $350 each all postage included for anywhere in the USA and 1 of the 1 Litre tins for $70 all postage included.
If you want any of the above write to filotto at gmail dot com.
As usual, first come first served. The people who have already received theirs were without exception enthusiastic about the oil and when I have a little more time I will collate their emails and comments and try to put them up here at some point.
Any of the buyers that want to share their experience of the oil are also welcome to comment here, of course.
Vox believes objective beauty is categorisable with reference to the 1-10 scale men use to rate woman. I generally agree but with the corollary that EVERYONE is affected by their own subjective perspectives. Just like everyone sees through a glass darkly with reference to God. Including Vox and me.
For this reason I have for decades stated that the scale is really at best a 1-9. Numbers above 9 tend to be affected by one’s subjective perspectives.
Claudia was never attractive to me. O je ti ely she is beautiful but in all honesty she has always left me cold. Vox rates her a 10 “objectively”. I give her an 8.5 at most.
Subjectively I can tell she is an 8-8.5 but if she came on to me at a party when I was in my mid-20s I doubt I would have bothered to take her home, and if I had it would have been merely been out of either boredom or curiosity to see if my appraisal that she would have been lacklustre in bed was indeed correct. It’s not entirely for science, but you know, research is research.
Here is Claudia at her best.
On the other hand, if I was at a party where Madeline was at the same hypothetical, I would most likely have approached her. And I am perfectly aware Madeline has an irregular face (asymmetry to a degree is attractive to me even if it supposedly detracts from classical beauty standards) and probably on an objective e scale is only a 7, but personally I rated her a 9. And here she is:
Now, as I’m doing this on my phone, irritatingly, the poll button is not an option, but I am curious as to what the readers think.
There are plenty of images of both women on the internet, some without any clothing at all, so feel free to investigate, and then leave a comment as to whom you find personally more attractive.
This very unscientific and statistically almost insignificant research does not in fact have anything to do with rating women, but rather with how men do so.
As a general criteria, feel free to also explain why you find one more attractive than the other.
