I am excited to test out my cold weather gear tomorrow night in -40 wind-chill. Any guess how long I will be able to stand outside without moving?

The conditions are unfavorable. Beans were consumed. Today is a good day to let ’em fly.

A lawyer asks a farmer, “If I ask you a question and you get it right, I’ll give you one BCash. If you ask me a question and I can’t answer it, I’ll give you one Bitcoin.” The farmer agrees. The lawyer asks his question. The farmer gets it wrong and pays one BCash. Then the farmer asks, “What’s BCash good for?” The lawyer thinks for a long time. Then he gives the farmer one Bitcoin. The lawyer says, “So what’s the answer?” The farmer hands him one BCash.

A man’s walking down the sidewalk and almost steps on Monero. He jumps back and says, “Whoa!” He looks at it. “Looks like Monero.” He smells it. “Smells like Monero.” He touches it. “Still warm.” He tastes it. “Yep. Good thing I didn’t step in it.”

A lawyer asks a farmer, “If I ask you a question and you get it right, I’ll give you five dollars. If you ask me a question and I can’t answer it, I’ll give you fifty.” The farmer agrees. The lawyer asks his question. The farmer gets it wrong and pays five dollars. Then the farmer asks, “What goes up a hill with three legs and comes down with four?” The lawyer thinks for a long time, then gives the farmer fifty dollars. The lawyer says, “What was the answer?” The farmer gives him five dollars.

The Navy detained a Cuban tanker in the Gulf of America. Said its engines were stressing a protected whale. Whale was relocated to a costal windmill farm.

Tell me if you've heard this one, it was my grandma's favorite: A man walks along the sidewalk. He almost steps on a pile of dogshit and says "whough!" practically toppling over. He looks and says "Hmmm, that looks like dogshit!" Then he gets down and smells it. "It sure smells like dogshit." He feels it with his pinkey finger. "Its warm like fresh dogshit." Then he puts his finger in his mouth. "Hmm, it tastes just like dogshit. Good thing I didn't step in it!"

Lies wouldn't have any appeal of they weren't mixed with truths. * Identify the lack of connective tissue between an offered problem and the proposed solution. * Ask whether there are alternative explanations and dismiss those only systematically, but choose not out of preference * Consider the source, reject credentials as credibility, is your source also deceived? * Accept that one can never know some truths without the offender, when too powerful, admitting a transgression and they never will. * If it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck: It IS a duck, even when they say it is a goose. * If an individual, assume innocence. If an institution, assume guilt.

Government: "If you make yourself my slave, then I will respect you."

Why is AI output "slop"? It is because we can sense authorship. Even behind the dryest corporate policy documents, we can sense someone, or a committee, was behind the words. As soon as we sense it was written by AI, we immediately reject it as valueless. Will we condition the next generation to obey the AI through AI driven education? Will they obey it, even if they are forced to? I suspect our dreams of sitting back and doing everything for free with AI will quickly turn into a nightmare of a world of trash.

I had a great time this weekend being trained by SERE instructors

God is spoiling me

Biden's last 6 months in office were perhaps the best period of presidency in America's history... because he was dead.

I'm considering making a follow-pack of fags - people that irritate me.

Experientia docet If you believe you must first learn how others do a thing before attempting it yourself, you will eventually discover that those others learned by doing first. Their methods worked because they were fitted to their temperament, circumstances, incentives, and support structures. Once abstracted from those conditions, the method no longer transfers. What you call “learning” was delay. You would have learned more, faster, by beginning directly and allowing reality to correct you. Experience has no substitute because it cannot be borrowed.

# Roads Without Roots: Mobility, Christianity, and the Fragility of Moral Order Here is a claim that sounds strange until it becomes obvious, and frightening once it does: **Moral order depends on friction.** When exit becomes cheap, responsibility erodes. When responsibility erodes, respect collapses. This is not a story about decadence, ideology, or bad intentions. It is a story about infrastructure. --- ## Roads Are Not Neutral Large-scale road systems do more than move goods and armies. They **reconfigure human accountability**. Roads: - collapse distance - lower exit costs - dissolve reputational enforcement - weaken local obligation - enable anonymity at scale This is not moral speculation. It is structural reality. Where people can leave easily, promises weaken. Where obligations can be escaped cheaply, permanence feels irrational. Civilizations have encountered this problem before. --- ## Rome Knew the Danger The Romans built the greatest road system the world had ever seen — and they noticed the consequences. As roads expanded: - people detached from land and kin - cities filled with rootless populations - crime became mobile - trust declined - household authority weakened - marriage and birthrates among citizens collapsed Rome responded not by restoring friction, but by **centralizing control**: - marriage laws - penalties for childlessness - legal intrusion into family life - moral regulation by decree They understood the problem. They chose management over covenant. It didn’t work. --- ## Christianity Was Not an Accident of the Roads — It Was a Solution to Them Christianity emerged inside a high-mobility empire and did something unprecedented: It **reconstructed moral constraint inside the will**, rather than relying on place, blood, or civic status. Christianity offered: - covenant without geography - obligation without enforcement - brotherhood without kinship - permanence without enclosure This made it uniquely portable. A Christian remained bound: - on the road - in exile - in prison - in diaspora - in slavery Christianity was not merely compatible with Roman roads — it was the only moral ontology that could survive them. --- ## Feudalism: Reintroducing Friction After Rome’s collapse, medieval society did something unfashionable but effective: It **raised exit costs**. Feudalism, guilds, parishes, and manorial systems: - bound people to place - thickened reputation - enforced obligation socially rather than bureaucratically - stabilized family, work, and worship This was not enlightened, but it was functional. Christian morality endured because society **reintroduced friction** to support it. --- ## America Repeats the Pattern — Faster Railroads reopened the problem. Automobiles accelerated it. Highways completed it. By the mid-20th century: - exit became cheap - abandonment became anonymous - reputation became optional - permanence became fragile The Interstate Highway System did not cause moral collapse — it **made collapse scalable**. By the late 1960s: - obligation felt punitive - permanence felt naive - fault felt cruel - exit felt therapeutic Law followed reality. --- ## No-Fault Divorce: Covenant Admitted Dead No-fault divorce did not liberate marriage. It **ratified the death of enforceable permanence**. Once exit was cheap: - fault could no longer be coherently enforced - responsibility could no longer be symmetrically imposed - respect collapsed by structural necessity Marriage became an administrated preference, not a covenant. --- ## Fiat Money: The Same Move, One Level Up In 1971, the U.S. closed the gold window. Obligation was severed from settlement. Constraint was replaced with credibility theater. Default was reframed as policy. This was not coincidence. A society that cannot sustain lifelong vows cannot sustain redeemable money. Both depend on the same thing: **the ability to bind the future**. --- ## The Invariant Here is the law underneath it all: > **Respect exists only where one will must still account for another will as an irreducible source of constraint.** Cheap exit destroys that condition. Roads dissolve local enforcement. Law replaces covenant. Management replaces respect. --- ## Why This Matters Now Modern society has: - maximal mobility - minimal friction - declining trust - collapsing commitment - expanding enforcement - moral language without moral leverage We are not witnessing moral failure. We are witnessing **structural unbinding**. --- ## Final Compression Roads did not make people worse. They made responsibility optional. Christianity once solved this by moving covenant into the will. Modern systems rejected that solution and chose administration instead. When exit is free, respect cannot survive. And when respect collapses, no amount of policy can restore it. This is not a culture war. It is a civilizational constraint problem. And almost no one is prepared to name it.

## No-Fault divorce and WTF happened in 1971? When the law removes one spouse’s ability to refuse, exit, or impose cost, respect collapses by structural necessity, not by moral failure. --- ### How This Happened So Fast (1960s → 1970s) No-fault divorce did not emerge because society calmly reasoned its way to justice. It emerged because **multiple social shocks converged**, creating an opening that legal and bureaucratic elites exploited. #### 1. The Sexual Revolution (Technological Shock) - Oral contraception decoupled sex from reproduction. - Marriage lost its function as the primary regulator of sexual behavior. - Long-term obligation no longer matched short-term incentives. This created instability *before* the law changed. #### 2. Therapeutic Psychology Replaced Moral Language - Duty was reframed as repression. - Suffering was reclassified as pathology. - Commitment became conditional on “personal fulfillment.” Once permanence is pathologized, fault becomes cruelty. #### 3. Second-Wave Feminism (Legitimate Grievance, Asymmetric Fix) - Real injustices existed: dependency traps, abuse ignored by courts. - But the solution chosen was not symmetry. - It was **risk transfer**. Marriage was transformed from a bilateral covenant into a **unilateral option with enforced financial extraction**. #### 4. Bureaucratic and Judicial Incentives Fault-based divorce was: - evidentiary - adversarial - morally complex No-fault divorce was: - administratively simple - caseload-efficient - discretion-expanding Courts preferred manageability over justice. --- ### Why Elites Benefited This was not accidental. **Beneficiaries included:** - Legal systems (expanded authority, reduced burden) - The therapeutic class (ongoing intervention, expert dependency) - The state (greater leverage over family formation) - Financial institutions (two-income necessity, debt expansion) The family unit was weakened. The individual became administratively legible. Dependency shifted upward. --- ### How Coordination Happened (Globally, Rapidly) This was not voted in by deep public consensus. It followed a familiar pattern: 1. Cultural narratives shifted first (films, novels, TV) 2. Permanence was portrayed as naïve or oppressive 3. Reform was framed as “modernization” 4. Early adopters were praised; dissenters shamed 5. International policy imitation followed This is **elite Schelling-point coordination**, not organic moral discovery. Within a decade, deviation looked regressive. Alignment became mandatory. --- ### Why This Outcome Is Structural and Inevitable Here is the theorem: > **Respect exists only where one will must still account for another will as an irreducible source of constraint.** No-fault divorce, as implemented: - Removes male exit leverage - Presumes financial guilt without fault - Makes refusal symbolic - Makes compliance enforceable Once a will is trapped, it is no longer modeled as an agent. It is modeled as a resource. At that point: - Respect cannot be demanded - Deference cannot be expected - Reciprocity becomes incoherent This is not about intentions. It is about **incentive geometry**. --- ### Final Compression The 1960s did not liberate marriage. They **restructured it so that one will became optional and the other became captive**. Once law enforces asymmetry, disrespect is not a vice. It is the equilibrium. You cannot moralize your way out of a structural violation of agency. You can only restore constraint—or accept the consequences. View quoted note →