The Sovereign Games

Musk is a master at winning the slave owner game. That is why he is so successful and flourishes. Want to know the secret of how he wins it and flourishes? He doesn't play it, and when others try to play it on him, he calls it out and refuses to play.

@PierceLilholt My answer is no: you can't learn from the past if it is all custom-built not to learn from. A past you control is a past that controls you.

If AI can create a synthetic past that aligns with your goals, will you accept it?

"You are watching me play sports like I want, but now you are sitting at the wrong angle because I turned; now avert your eyes, pervert." ~Feminist Athletes Now, just looking at women doing public events is sexualizing them? Sidenote: Now do men athletes scratching and adjusting.

@Dexerto "You are watching me play sports like I want, but now you are sitting at the wrong angle because I turned; now avert your eyes, pervert." ~Feminist Athletes Now, just looking at women doing public events is sexualizing them? Sidenote: Now do men scratching and adjusting.

New broadcasting guidelines for women's athletics have been released to crack down on camera angles and slow-motion replays that ‘sexualize’ athletes The guidelines highlight shots broadcasters are urged to avoid

Gigglesnort

@CancelPigs I am hurting so bad. It just hurts. I can't stop laughing at the little kid in the background looking at the stump. 😅😂🤣

@CancelPigs Here is my really badly generated children's book cover for my story. Also, coming soon. Part two. Over the horizon, we see another orchid, and so begins the long road.

Knock, knock, reality here. Let's knock this out first. 1- The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. His whole philosophy was built on that blatantly patented lie. Reality proved otherwise. The rich got richer, and the poor got richer, raising billions out of abject poverty. 2 - Steal Underpants + ? = Wealth. Marxism does not create abundance. He skipped over the HOW it will do it, the mechanics, and then went straight into how it will just be fruitful. That is like forgetting to add an engine to your car and going-"we are going to go to a great place, driving this. It will be an amazing trip." 3 - Because he didn't put in the how-to mechanism, everyone who is beholden to it and tries to wing it to apply it practically ends up failing miserably. Like horrific brutal failure - lots of dying and stuff. Hence, it will always fail without an engine. Now the fun part. We created a calibration procedure to calibrate Marxism. The results showed Marxism is failing, calibration failures, on so many levels that it is a wonder it will always fail. When questioned, our standards were biased; we let them input their standards, again, total calibration failure. Then the chef's kiss. We set standards based on Marx's own standards for capitalism. Ran the cal procedure on both Marxism and capitalism, and "Oh, my." The report showed Marxism was right in its criticism of capitalism, but it also showed Marxism just as guilty on every standard, with one striking difference. Capitalism delivers on abundance, and Marxism creates abject failure. Now, even more revealing. Both are equally exploitative, with a huge difference. Capitalism is exploited, which can be regulated. Marxism has the exploitation baked into the system, making it harder to regulate. We will create an even more extensive calibration procedure to ensure we diagnose it correctly, then provide a calibration report identifying problems and a full report on how to calibrate it. These are initial findings, and we are still developing them. Results may vary. But it has been a fascinating exploration.

@TheModerateCase I would have left it up for more shock factor.

Sneako accidentally posted the AI instructions he used to generate a tweet, including the part where he told it to “optimize for more shock factor.” Then he deleted it. You genuinely cannot make this stuff up. 😂

@jacobin How it started: We deserve control How it ends: Burn that motherfucker down

Big Tech has looted humanity's creative output to create artificial intelligence. We don't just deserve a share of AI’s profits — we deserve control over it. jacobin.com/2026/07/ai-big…

@RadioFreeTom, is unavailable at this time. Please leave a message, and he will get back to you.

@charlesmurray @infantrydort @RadioFreeTom, is unavailable at this time. Please leave a message, and he will get back to you.

I did attend Harvard and have spent a lot time around the place off and on ever since. I have no problem with @infantrydort's description. What did he get factually wrong, Tom?

@infantrydort Gigglesnort

Oh boy, this is a doosey. The compression is amazing. Let's break this down, but first, two quick points - Point 1: How to tell someone I am not qualified without telling someone I am not qualified. Point 2: How to explicitly state I am so out of touch with reality that I think it is reality. @RadioFreeTom: "Thinking that "national security" is limited to "whatever people do in the Army"" Me: Ooh, nice straw doll. One should always come out swinging by playing with dolls (Thinking that "national security" is limited to)... 1. It implies he doesn't know anything about National Security. 2. Sets the scene that you claim dominance over it. ...and mixing in another straw doll (whatever people do in the Army) is some real-world child's play. 1. It reduces serving to just one branch as it attacks that branch. Just brilliant. 2. It completely denies the reality of the reality that serving is key to understanding National Security, which was his point. Tactic: Deflection and denial. Key Point: Defending ideology is the number one priority. @RadioFreeTom: "is one of the reasons that war colleges and national security education programs exist:" Me: Ignores that they have been gutted and are in name only, and while still claiming they have the same objectives they were originally designed for. It would be nice if that was your actual objective. Tactic: Accept my premise and ignore any realities. Key Point: Defending ideology is the number one priority. @RadioFreeTom: "To help military officers get past this narrowness and understand how civilians make national security policy." Me: Ignores what he is really saying - to indoctrinate military officers with civilians' captured institutions' ideology. While professing they are just trying to do the same as it was in the past. Tactic: Accept my ideologies and ignore your lying eyes. Key Point: Defending ideology is the number one priority. Deeper Meaning - He deflects from the reality that he needs real-world experience to do his job and succeed in policymaking that leads to success, not failure. Real-world example: Surgeons were able to perform this life-saving procedure for the first time, achieving a phenomenal success rate. But when they passed the patient off to the ICU, the death rates went back to dismal results. A surgeon came up with the idea of bringing in a pit crew (real-world experience at handling the mechanics of the world) to help them understand what they are doing wrong. The pit crew taught them the proper mechanics of practical surgical application and the handoff to the ICU, and then taught the ICU. The success rates in performing the surgery, transfer to the ICU, and ICU care all contribute to even higher rates of survival and recovery. That was expert mechanics introduced by the pit crew. The next level of master mechanics would be the surgeons, who would serve on the pit crews for two years. Now translate that to National Security, where the stakes of lives are even higher. Just bringing in experts doesn't cut it - you need a team of experienced experts who have served and, along with those who have served, to become masters. Conclusion: This moron needs to be replaced. He shouldn't be anywhere near National Security.

Oh boy, this is a doosey. The compression is amazing. Let's break this down, but first, two quick points - Point 1: How to tell someone I am not qualified without telling someone I am not qualified. Point 2: How to explicitly state I am so out of touch with reality that I think it is reality. @RadioFreeTom: "Thinking that "national security" is limited to "whatever people do in the Army"" Me: Ooh, nice straw doll. One should always come out swinging by playing with dolls (Thinking that "national security" is limited to)... 1. It implies he doesn't know anything about National Security. 2. Sets the scene that you claim dominance over it. ...and mixing in another straw doll (whatever people do in the Army) is some real-world child's play. 1. It reduces serving to just one branch as it attacks that branch. Just brilliant. 2. It completely denies the reality of the reality that serving is key to understanding National Security, which was his point. Tactic: Deflection and denial. Key Point: Defending ideology is the number one priority. @RadioFreeTom: "is one of the reasons that war colleges and national security education programs exist:" Me: Ignores that they have been gutted and are in name only, and while still claiming they have the same objectives they were originally designed for. It would be nice if that was your actual objective. Tactic: Accept my premise and ignore any realities. Key Point: Defending ideology is the number one priority. @RadioFreeTom: "To help military officers get past this narrowness and understand how civilians make national security policy." Me: Ignores what he is really saying - to indoctrinate military officers with civilians' captured institutions' ideology. While professing they are just trying to do the same as it was in the past. Tactic: Accept my ideologies and ignore your lying eyes. Key Point: Defending ideology is the number one priority. Deeper Meaning - He deflects from the reality that he needs real-world experience to do his job and succeed in policymaking that leads to success, not failure. Real-world example: Surgeons were able to perform this life-saving procedure for the first time, achieving a phenomenal success rate. But when they passed the patient off to the ICU, the death rates went back to dismal results. A surgeon came up with the idea of bringing in a pit crew (real-world experience at handling the mechanics of the world) to help them understand what they are doing wrong. The pit crew taught them the proper mechanics of practical surgical application and the handoff to the ICU, and then taught the ICU. The success rates in performing the surgery, transfer to the ICU, and ICU care all contribute to even higher rates of survival and recovery. That was expert mechanics introduced by the pit crew. The next level of master mechanics would be the surgeons, who would serve on the pit crews for two years. Now translate that to National Security, where the stakes of lives are even higher. Just bringing in experts doesn't cut it - you need a team of experienced experts who have served and, along with those who have served, to become masters. Conclusion: This moron needs to be replaced. He shouldn't be anywhere near National Security.

Thinking that "national security" is limited to "whatever people do in the Army" is one of the reasons that war colleges and national security education programs exist: To help military officers get past this narrowness and understand how civilians make national security policy.

They already help solve poverty by doing what they do, which helps lift the masses up. The answer to solving most poverty is billionaires, millionaires, and the masses practicing capitalism. As for world poverty, all the money in the world would not stop it. Why? Phase 1: - You would have to fund endless wars to destroy underdeveloped systems ruled by brutal tribalism. - You would have to destroy or capture dictatorships and more. - You would have to destroy or capture failing governments that linger in socialism. - You would have to destroy or capture anything not capitalist-run. - You would have to destroy or capture - anything capitalist-run, but has low trust, low standards, and low work ethics. - The list goes on. Note: In the process of Phase 1, you create massive poverty in capitalist states that fund this campaign on poverty. And that doesn't solve poverty - you still have more steps. Phase 2: You have to enact slavery to force the people to your will, and if they don't submit, you will eventually have to murder them. Phase 3: You have to redesign a whole system based on slavery. - The elite who live in abundance to rule over. - The military that enforces the state will live better lives. - The enforcers who get perks that enforce slavery. - And the enslaved who get well fed, but live abject lives. - Then the hidden class - the rebels who will live in abject poverty to overthrow the state. Phase 4: Murdering will help with the abject impoverished who fail to be good slaves. Conclusion: I compressed it, but the problem is solved as well as it will ever be at that point. If you call that success. Oh, and comforts? Forget about them - we will be in third-world archaic mode. Walking and shitting outside will be the new norm.

They already help solve poverty by doing what they do, which helps lift the masses up. The answer to solving most poverty is billionaires, millionaires, and the masses practicing capitalism. As for world poverty, all the money in the world would not stop it. Why? Phase 1: - You would have to fund endless wars to destroy underdeveloped systems ruled by brutal tribalism. - You would have to destroy or capture dictatorships and more. - You would have to destroy or capture failing governments that linger in socialism. - You would have to destroy or capture anything not capitalist-run. - You would have to destroy or capture - anything capitalist-run, but has low trust, low standards, and low work ethics. - The list goes on. Note: In the process of Phase 1, you create massive poverty in capitalist states that fund this campaign on poverty. And that doesn't solve poverty - you still have more steps. Phase 2: You have to enact slavery to force the people to your will, and if they don't submit, you will eventually have to murder them. Phase 3: You have to redesign a whole system based on slavery. - The elite who live in abundance to rule over. - The military that enforces the state will live better lives. - The enforcers who get perks that enforce slavery. - And the enslaved who get well fed, but live abject lives. - Then the hidden class - the rebels who will live in abject poverty to overthrow the state. Phase 4: Murdering will help with the abject impoverished who fail to be good slaves. Conclusion: I compressed it, but the problem is solved as well as it will ever be at that point. If you call that success. Oh, and comforts? Forget about them - we will be in third-world archaic mode. Walking and shitting outside will be the new norm.

You don't find it weird that not a single billionaire wants to end world poverty? Doesn't it strike you as bizarre that no one with that kind of wealth wants to be the hero who actually solves the world's biggest problems when they literally could? lsn't that suspicious?

I sold you a coffee at my work today so I can come live with you is your argument? I'm guessing the pool boy has access to your wife using your cuck arguments.

@AidanSimardone I sold you a coffee at my work today so I can come live with you is your argument? I'm guessing the pool boy has access to your wife using your cuck arguments.

Europeans want African minerals, African oil, African cocoa, African coffee, African labor, but they don't want Africans

@CancelPigs Thanks, I got an online master's at Acme Educational Branch.

@HappyBeingday That was better than Homer's Odyssey. It was also like a humanities class in story structure. We have Introduction, Call to Action, Rising Action, Climax, Falling Action, Demount, and Conclusion. I see you're a good study.

They see the fruit on the tree as they criticize the tree, declaring trees inefficient, too slow to grow, and exploitative of labor. “We could build a much better one,” they say. Then they chop the tree down for kindling to fuel their revolution, harvest all the existing fruit to fund it, and promise a glorious new orchard of endless abundance. The utopia never grows. The fruit runs out. And everyone wonders why they’re suddenly starving. The end.

The one thing that Marxists, free marketers, and all in between neglect to say about Marxism: It absolutely requires capitalism and free markets to exist. Marxism can only exist by take from what was already built. Marxists exploit capitalism's and and the free market's one fatal flaw: Abundance. But not just the simple abundance of a few more apples or potatoes. These system generate an embarrassment of riches so numerous the excess has to be given away or discarded. This abundance also generates the pernicious effeminate and effete preening class. The preening class have no sense of urgency for food, shelter, or survival and develop their own form of currency in the appearance of kindness and false virtue. While sitting on high separated from the unwashed masses, they convince those below them any woes or failures they experience--even in a world of abundance--are the fault of the very system providing that abundance. The preening class extracts grievance from the unwashed and uninformed masses like a leech's proboscis extracts dark, rich blood from an unsuspecting host for nourishment. Marxism isn't the answer to raising up the downtrodden. It is a parasite requiring a host to not simply survive, but to exist. Oink!🐷

@infantrydort @RadioFreeTom Ditto. Reality>Vibes x.com/HappyBeingday/…

@RadioFreeTom You think prestige settles arguments. I think reality does.

I don't mind that you didn't go to Harvard. I'm pointing out that you writing about "what Harvard is like" would be like me giving pointers on how to aim artillery. I write about national security policy, the thing done by civilians (like me) and very senior military officers.