The Conspiracy Wiki

The theory of the zombie apocalypse caused by the capitalist memevirus is the theory that there is an ongoing zombie apocalypse caused by brains being taken over by corporate rules that only favor the profit of the corporations at the expense of the genes of the hosts. The theory draws on the rebuttal of anti-memetics sycophancy made by others, in particular that written language is evidently durable enough to have already produced clades of related but distinct ideas and laws. This theory, however, adds a distinction between symbiont and parasitoid.

The allegation that "capitalism is in human nature" cannot explain why the world did not beome uninhabitable long ago. If capitalism was as old as humanity, its destruction of the environment would have ended all life on Earth a long time ago. The claim that "now we have regulations that can protect the environment" misses both the point that everyone would have already been dead if a 200000 year old "human nature" was the cause of capitalism, and the point that greenhouse gas emissions increase and that megacorporations control the bureaucracy through lobbyism so the biggest corporations are not suppressed at all. Since capitalist zombie meme virus theory predicts that the origin of the capitalist virus is much more recent than biologically modern humans, it does not have that problem.

Rebutting "you are a memeoid too because you use language" sycophancy[]

Anti-memetics sycophants claim that it would not be possible to distinguish a memeoid (a host so completely taken over by memes that his or her survival becomes inconsequential) from a language user. That claim is bullshit becaue it misses the distinction between symbionts that benefit their hosts and parasitoids that kill their hosts. The anti-memetic sycophancy is the equivalent of relativizing fungi that take over ants and kills both them and their colonies by using their modified behavior to spread the fungus by falsely equating it with leaf-cutter ants living in symbiosis with cultivated fungi.

Or even worse, since the sycophants miss the distinction between metabolic organisms and ametabolic code too, a distinction that is critical because evolutionary anti-psychiatry arguments that evolution would never predispose an organism to rationalization of preconcieved decisions since after-rationalization would waste energy applies only to systems with metabolisms. That includes but is not restricted to humans. The distinction logically puts fungi, bacteria and insect larvae within the scope of the argument too. But not viruses and corporate board rules.

It is possible to be falsely alleged to "rationalize" something without being a zombie. Corporatocratic zombie viruses use their hosts to make such allegations against non-zombies. No metabolizing organism or its genes can ever benefit from "rationalization", showing that every allegation of someone "rationalizing" anything for egoistic, nepotistic or reproductive purposes is a false allegation. However, memeoid host zombies taken over by capitalist zombie meme viruses can be used by the memes to "rationalize" corporate profit, since corporate rules are pieces of code with no metabolism. Corporations are not even subject to the metabolism-like link between size and activity that cities are.

Inconsequential survival of genes as the zombie limit[]

Biology shows that kin selection can make non-zombified organisms sacrifice their individual lives for their relatives as a way of furthering their genes. However, hosts that damage not only themselves but also their kin while furthering the parasite, they are zombies. This means that indifference to the survival of one's bloodline (or claiming to care about it but putting "values" that may well be corporatocratic above it) is a hallmark of a zombie. That effect is not present in all language users.

Recognizing a capitalist zombie[]

Along with the fact that not caring about the survival of one's genes marks a host as a zombie, there are ways of identifying zombies specifically of the capitalist meme virus strain. This is the same principle as that used in biology to distinguish zombifications caused by different types of parasites while acknowledging that the other zombies are zombies too. The fact that the capitalist memetic zombie virus is more aggressive than previous religious memetic zombie viruses is demonstrated by the fact that unlike capitalist zombism, memes promoting monastery life never managed to induce negative population growth. Even monks and nuns in celibacy frequently sent their families help that actually helped them survive, not just consume as is the case with the false "help" zombies inflict on their family members today, and so the monks and nuns were not even necessarily zombies.

One sure sign of zombification by the capitalist memevirus is the act of assuming that behavior is about consuming experiences as entertainment. One example is the "you are a zombie too because you have not procreated yet" type of sycophant that alleges those who point out that there are exterior preventions to be "incels", since that allegation implicitly assumes that the goal would be to consume non-reproductive sex as entertainment instead of passing on one's genes as it actually is. There are also other examples of the consumer profiling symptom of capitalistic zombism, such as alleging that predictions of societal collapse are "apocalypse porn" or that pointing out that an idiot is stupid is about "enjoying hurting the feelings of others". All of those assumptions are symptoms of one and the same capitalist virus since they are all derived from corporate rules of profiling customers for short-sighted marketing of entertainment and the new public management-type blindness to long term consequences and inability to understand what it is like to be able to think about long term consequences that entails.

And not all criticisms of entertainment are created equal. Assumptions of entertainment motives that claim to "criticize" specific types of entertainment are themselves symptoms of being a zombie, as shown by their consumer profiling assumptions derived from corporate marketing. Someone who criticizes entertainment for being commercial or a distraction in general is not a zombie. But someone who profiles people who read, watch or listen to specific types of content on the grounds of psychological assumptions of people who are allegedly "entertained" by the content is a Zombius capitalistus, because the assumptions come from corporatocracy. That also goes for anyone assuming that entertainment purposes "must" be the default motive for reading, watching or listening to something unless it fits a finite checklist of other motives, since any regarding of the concept of entertainment as something default is corporatocratic.

The capitalist zombification virus is not only from the marketing department. Much of it comes from the HR department. This adds more sure signs of capitalist zombification that can be used to identify a capitalist zombie. For instance, referring to what behaviors HR does not accept in workplaces as an "argument" for claiming that such behavior is "antisocial" or "asocial" is a symptom of being a zombie of capitalism. That is especially obvious when the allegation is aimed at behaviors that were not profiled as "asocial" or "antisocial" in pre-capitalist or production-orientated early capitalist times.

Framing questions about how harmful the capitalist zombie virus can be or when it began with the implicit assumption that the symptoms must have remained the same since it began is also a sure sign of being zombified by the capitalist brain virus. Viruses reproduce exponentially and mutate to more aggressive strains, creating different stages of the same disease with different symptoms from the same infection. This applies to viruses in general and not only capitalist meme viruses, so it is not "special pleading". The fallacy the zombie committs is analogous to a doctor committing the fallacy of assuming that in order for a viral infection to be lethal, the symptoms would have had to be the same as those at the terminal stage from the moment of infection. Actual extrapolation of exponential infection shows that previous stages with milder symptoms having already been passed does not contradict that the current stage is lethal, but instead supports the theory that today's stage is terminal by the very fact that the milder stages have already elapsed.

Another sure sign of being a capitalist zombie is to make the assumption that monetary income measures "success" and that lack thereof implies "failure". That includes any allegation that someone who is both poor and criticizes capitalism "does so to rationalize his or her failure", which is also a damned if you do and damned if you don't fallacy since a rich person would instead be targeted with allegations of hypocrisy for criticizing capitalism. Those zombies are infected by corporate memes in the corporate charts that have been memetically selected to maximize profit, and therefore cannot understand that it is possible to value other things instead of profit. One example of "brain-eating" by such zombies is the misguided "benevolence" of trying to make people with other goals in life than profit buy the zombie nonsense about the other goals being "rationalizations of failure to make profit" and abandon their actual goals in favor of profiteering.

The evolutionary function of looking for reasons why something went wrong is to learn from it and solve future problems. Anyone drawing a line in the sand between "taking responsibility" and "blaming others" miss this point and therefore show themselves to be unable to error search or understand what it is like to be able to error search, since actual error searching draws no preconceived limit as to where the cause is to be found. And assumptions on the lines of "you only scapegoat to feel better about yourself" shows those making the assumptions to be zombies infected by the corporate zombie virus, since the assumption that people "consume experiences" is a symptom of marketing department infection.

What makes you resistent to zombie virus infection?[]

As with any infectious disease, averaging things out is not a functioning way of predicting selection for resistence. A biologist who dismissed the notion of some individuals having genetic resistence to a disease by claiming that "it is more likely that the individual has average genes" would fail to predict evolution of resistence. But the approach of examining specific characteristics and matching them with the characteristics of the pathogen to see which characteristics give protection from the particular pathogen can predict both the fact that resistence will evolve and which characteristics the survivors will have. So it is the "average everything out" statistician that committs the human exceptionalism fallacy by applying an "average everything out" methodology only to memetic viruses that infect humans, the examiner of specific characteristics apply the universality of the scientific method by following the same methodology as for other diseases. Claiming that "it is unlikely that you are resistent to a zombie memetic virus that most people are not resistent to" is a fatal methodological fallacy.

The claim that "all brains are equally Pavlovian" misrepresents Pavlov's research. Pavlov did not use simple bells, Pavlov used metronoms that could be adjusted to finely distinguished tolling rates. What he found was that brains with lower capacity associated food given while the metronom tolled with any tolling regardless of rate, while higher brain capacity made the conditioned reflexes more discriminating to only respond to a narrower tolling rate range around that at which the food was given. This debunks the claim that conditioned reflexes that are physiologically observable "are something that the body does irrespective of brainpower". Low discrimination of the physiological responses to conditioned reflexes signify low brainpower. This is shown here.

To determine what ranges of brain capacity and thus what ranges of discrimination level of the conditioned reflexes that makes you resistent to the capitalist mind virus, it is necessary to determine how capitalist mind viruses infect. In the case of late stage capitalism where industrial work have largely been replaced by administrative "work", capitalism's cheapest way of indoctrinating is by quantity over quality. Gone are the days when it would have been too expensive for corporations to operate large-scale controlled oppositions, since the corporations have copious amounts of non-productive staff in administration, HR, marketing, poll making and so on to use to that end for no additional cost beyond what it already costs to employ those non-producers in the first place. This means that the conditioning technique that you must be non-responsive to in order to be immune to the capitalist virus is the technique of having the same persons express two or more views to manufacture a statistical appearance of them being linked.

This means that high-resolution brains that distinguish the first principles and never associate axiomatically unrelated views regardless of quantity of persons expressing them together are immune. As are low-resolution brains that cannot distinguish any views at all. However, brains in the range of capacities that can distinguish some opinions but still respond to "the views must be related because almost all who express one also express the other" lack immunity to being zombified by corporate controlled oppositions.

Anyone assuming that someone who uses a particular symbol or word has a particular ideology "because people in general perceive it that way" is easy for corporations to zombify by quantity over quality lobbyism, and given the reach of capitalist media today is certainly already a zombie. This is obvious since what the largest number claims to "perceive" can easily be manufactured by the corporations with the biggest lobby departments. And "exceptions" for people that allegedly "do not know better" is no immunization to zombie viruses. This is part because argumentum ad populum is a fallacy and not capable of "better knowledge" even in principle and part because assuming that consciousness is a prerequisite for "evil" is capitalist anti-intelligence in itself.

The non-immue brain range includes both those that are susceptible to statistical arguments (such as those quoting Gallup-type graphs as "evidence") and those susceptible to individual cases. One example of the latter is those tricked into associating first principles thinking with Elon Musk merely because he parroted it. It is possible that Elon Musk is a controlled opposition, in this case used by bigger corporations that no physical person can afford buying to falsely associate reasoning from first principles (known at least since Aristotle back in antiquity) with a modern capitalist strawman.

The theory that Elon Musk is controlled opposition used by capitalism to suppress first principles thinking is supported by the fact that capitalism's search engine algorithms "light up" the name Elon Musk but not the name Aristotle when you search for "reasoning from first principles". If you commit the association fallacy "you must sympathize with Elon Musk if you advocate first principles reasoning", you lack immunity to the capitalist zombie virus.

Someone actually capable of first principle reasoning who was exposed to information about Moore's law and the experience of failing data systems would understand that digitalization is not sustainable. A high resolution brain observing the fact that Elon Musk builds his entire life on the assumption that computers will always work will therefore conclude that Elon Musk (at least in his current form) lacks the capacity for first principle thinking. The question of whether Musk was born without the ability or lost it later (perhaps because of drugs damaging the brain) would require more data points to answer. As such, a high resolution brain would not assume that reasoning from first principles is "Muskist" no matter how many times the association fallacy is repeated.

First principles thinking can falsify hypotheses[]

Capitalist media claims that reasoning from first principles would make you easy to brainwash, but in fact first principles thinking facilitates falsification of false theories. Its precise distinctions in what predictions follow from what theory allows you to trace the false predictions to its underlying false theory, and falsify it. That means that any followment of a false theory by someone capable of reasoning from first principles will be temporary, provided that the ability is retained.

Statistics about individuals with the same diagnoses as late capitalist psychiatry assigns to individuals who think from first principles face not only the general problems with statistics and psychiatry's lack of biomarker rigor but also miss the point of drug-induced brain damage and the time perspective. A first principle reasoner who first tries out one political party and gets tired of it because the party follows "it is wrong because the opposite party says so" instead of logical reasoning from first principles would hear a lot of "you sound like another party" on the way out. Possibly about a party that the person had not even heard about. If the person then tries out that party by following what essentially amounts to advice from the party he or she was thrown out of, the person will discover that the second party does not follow first principles either and get tired of that party too.

However, if psychiatry induces brain damage with psychiatric medication, the person loses the capacity for first principles reasoning. The individual will then not get tired of the next party that the individual joins post brain damage, since the ability that made the person tired of political parties is no longer there. Psychiatry's policy of retaining the same diagnosis on paper after the brain damage as before (worsened by denail of the fact that it is brain damage) creates a methodological error in psychiatry that falsely assumes the symptoms of brain damage to be "symptoms" of a pre-damage diagnosis. In this case, a false allegation that blind adherence to a party encountered after the loss of the ability to think from first principles is a "symptom" of first principles reasoning.

The combination of the claims "first principles thinking is a symptom of autism" and "autistic people were killed as children in premodern times" is idiotic or at least ignorant of history. Aristotle expressed thinking from first principles in antiquity, and Aristotle was not killed as a child. Nor were many other philosophers who reasoned in a similar way.

The claim that "all social animals kill deviant individuals because differences weaken the group" is nonsense. Social insects have markedly different castes and do not kill some castes for "deviating from the average member of the colony". Doing so would weaken the colony by eliminating some castes, and very likely destroy the entire colony by killing the queen for "deviating from the norm set by the majority being workers". One theory of homosexuality in humans is that of kin selection similar to sterile ant workers. However, that is also an argument against the claim that "humans are naturally homophobic and modern institutions are needed to protect homosexuals from being killed", since kin selection for non-reproducing individuals rely on such individuals filling a function and therefore biologically selects against killing such individuals. Just as the work performed by sterile ant workers select against ant colonies killing off their workers, no need for any bureaucracy to prevent them from killing their workers.

New public management and zombie institutions[]

While new public management is officially said to have been about public institutions copying private corporations "because private corporations are efficient", zombie memevirus theory says that capitalist memes from private corporations reproduced by infecting public institutions. Unlike the official version, the memetic theory correctly predicts that infrastructure have become increasingly vulnerable to disruptions due to "monetary savings over planning for resilience to disruption" policies. Infrastructure have become increasingly ridden with bottlenecks and failing more and more often due to shorter-sighted patching instead of planned and robust repairs since new public management was passed.

This shows the absurdity of the allegation that predictions of collapse "are like a stopped clock that shows the right time two times a day". Extrapolating the trend of new public management destroying infrastructure to a resulting societal collapse is exactly as logical as predicting that pumping up more groundwater than is replenished will lead to the area running out of groundwater. It is capitalist zombie hypocrisy to dismiss that as "showing the right time twice a day" while claiming that a physical person who spends more money than he or she earns "needs help" when the person likewise claims that "you only show the right time twice a day when you predict that I will run out of money". If sycophants that allege predictions of collapse of unsustainable trends to be "stopped clocks" are not diagnosed with intellectual disability, one may as well abolish the concept of intellectual disability altogether.

With public institutions taken over by corporate code, it is absurd to believe that public institutions can control corporations. It is corporations that use public institutions to maximize profit. This theory correctly predicted that climate conferences would lead to no substantial results due to them being controlled by oil corporations. Those who believe that climate politics "proves" that oil corporations do not control politics are themselves zombies and unable to understand that oil corporations profit from zombified politicians, academians and activists flying oil-guzzling private jets from climate conference to climate conference. There are historical examples of successful environmental policies, but they were governed completely differently from today's doomed-to-failure environmental policy organizations.

Any claim that "if that is not important for you, then you should be okay with bureaucracy against it" or anything of the same meaning by any other euphemistic name is bullshit. What bureaucracy considers "collateral damage" can be an evil in itself no matter if you do not care about the specific thing that bureaucracy claims that its controls are for fighting. For example, searches for alleged contraband that is not there can damage other things. In addition to that, bureaucratic institutions and their meetings and communications consume energy which is not good for the environment. Any institution that labels you as "having an agenda" to support or do something because you oppose a bureaucratic institution is dishonest capitalism, zombified by appeal to motive fallacies.

One example is the idiotic allegation that critics of media institutions as rule systems "hate" journalists as physical persons or "sympathize" with institutional regimes that imprison journalists as physical persons. media "ethics" rules that make the media easy for big corporations to control are built into the institutions of institutionally sanctioned journalistics, but that does not mean that journalists as physical persons are the problem since those who do not want those rules can be given opportunities to do something better by being offered other alternatives. And criticism of journalistic institutions patently does not imply "support" for regimes that are themselves institutions and imprison journalists as physical persons, especially not considering that the regimes are themselves puppets of the same gigantic corporations that control journalistic "ethics". It is perfectly possible to break the system of institutions while at the same time enabling physical persons to spread ideas freely by means such as home-printed books carried by small hot air balloons, in which elimination of all institutions protect both readers and distributors from reprisals since there are no longer any central authorities to track them down to punish them.

Institutions that claim that it is "necessary" to let big corporations get away lightly with things that a physical person would have been severely punished for are zombie institutions. This includes public institutions, showing that they are infected by corporations. Claiming that it would be "system threatening" to punish big corporations severely enough to make them fall miss the point that a system in which big corporations have power is a threat in itself. To dismiss it by saying that "it is what the world is like" is a worse version of dismissing the idea of overthrowing a world dictator by saying that "world dictatorship is what the world is like", because a system ruled by corporate tyranny is worse than a system ruled by a dictator who is a physical person as a result of today's biggest corporations being the result of memetic selection for the worst profit-maximizing corporate rules. The fact that today's corporations are rule-based is what made them undergo selection that made them worse and worse and became much worse than the worst individual dictator! "Threatening" the corporate system or, better yet, exterminating the corporate system is good.

When the same institutions that claim that a number of things are "system threatening" also claim that the bureaucratic system cannot be destroyed, they show their corruption by self-contradiction. The same system cannot both be indestructible and threatened, because indestructibility means immunity to all threats. Institutions that refuse to do anything that could dismantle big corporations are doomed by their policies to be puppets of big corporations. It cannot be avoided by "regulating the corporations without destroying them" since institutions that would never destroy a big corporation gives the big corporations incentives to organize themselves in such a way that any regulation that would truly reduce their profit would destroy them. And then the public institutions that refuse to destroy big corporations stand there unable to do anything against corporate profit without violating their own rules, making only bullshit token "regulations" that are extensions of corporate destructive profiteering such as flying private jets to fruitless climate conferences.

History also shows the link between most countries changing their ages of majority from 21 to 18 in the 1970s and new public management inducing mismanagement of infrastructure in the same decade. While the list of empires in history that had functioning infrastructures (and competent military leadership) includes both states in which the age of majority was 15 years and states in which the age of majority was 21 years, no competent civilizations had 18 as an age of majority. In antiquity, Athens increased its age of majority from 15 to 18 when Athenian democracy was founded, while it remained 15 in other Greek city-states and that in the Roman Empire was originally 30 but later changed to 25 and still later to 21 (but never to 18). And Athenian democracy was not successful in maintaining large infrastructure, since it only had two relatively short periods of ruling an area larger than a city-state. The Delian League nominally lasted from 478 to 404 B.C., but it was only from 454 B.C. it was controlled enough by Athens to be considered an Athenian Empire (i.e. 50 years). And the Second Athenian League only lasted from 378 to 355 B.C. (23 years).

One possible explanation is that brains that develop at different rates have different civilization-creating abilities. The data can be explained by the theory that anyone who recognizes himself or herself in the notion of a decisive brain transformation at age 18 has a brain structure incapable of building or maintaining functioning supply chains, and can only take over infrastructure created by others and ruin it, leading to societal collapse. For all the difference between those who throughout their lives recognize the brains they had when they were in their mid teens as adult brains and those who feel that they were children in their brains until their early twenties, they may both be capable of creating civilizations with functional infrastructures. Ages of majority may be an indicator of the brain development rates of the neurological material of the rulers of the respective civilizations, which may be hereditary. Appeal to motive fallacies against brains of both civilization-capable blooming rates, including allegations of sexual motives, may be capitalist meme viruses created by corporations to persecute brains for being capable of building something, see Capitalist hostility to sapience.

Why you must abandon zombies to survive[]

Zombie stupidity leads to societal collapse. The stupidity of zombies saying "how does that matter in our little group/family?" guarantees that if they gain influence at a smaller scale after the collapse of civilization, they will destroy the infested smaller groups too. Even if the zombie host is part of your family, his or her supposed "care" for you will be harmful to your survival due to its zombified focus on making you consume (in the name of "feeling well") instead of actually surviving. That is obvious enough from the fact that zombies do not care if their bloodlines die out, meaning that zombies will not help your long term survival even if the hosts are your family. And since they focus on consuming instead of genetic survival, sacrificing yourself for them will not help your genes survive.

Zombies dismissing short-term sacrifice for survival and purpose by claiming that "your body needs rewards to survive" are brainwashed by capitalist drug lackeys. You only have to look at the harmful effects of drug addiction, in which the drug addicts reward themselves, to see that consumtion of short-term reward is not good for survival.

Do not let zombies trick you into believing that you would need what the zombies consider "social skills" to cooperate with non-zombies in non-zombie groups. Instead of trying to please zombies, be selective about who you form groups with in preparation for the societal collapse brought on by the capitalist virus and its exponential copying to the terminal stage. Anyone claiming that exclusion of zombies is about "enjoying hurting the zombies" proves himself or herself to be infected by the consumerist mind virus, since only a consumerist zombie controlled by the marketing department virus would read consumtion of experiences into behavior to the point of assuming that people do what they do to "enjoy" it short term. And thus, anyone making such an assumption of motives must be excluded.

Those claiming that "of course it is about enjoying" show their inability to think non-capitalistically and therefore their zombism, and must thus be excluded. Do not buy their "ofcourseisms" under any circumstances, those believing in suh "ofcourseisms" will not be able to make survival decisions in a grid down world and trying to "fit into" a group where such idiots have influence will only lead to dying with the group due to its idiotic decisions. The same goes for anyone unable to understand that there are other alternatives than capitalism and Soviet-type communism, see Capitalist creation of dumbed-down communist systems. Neither capitalism nor Sovietoid communism works in a world where the grid is down, so do not try to be part of the same groups as idiots unable to imagine a separate alternative.

One important aspect of a survival group is work for a purpose, on projects that are not interrupted between the disasters. The time between disasters is properly used for projects that are useful for the future, not for idling around and putting projects off to the last second before manifest disaster when it is effectively too late because there is not time to prepare. This requires zero tolerance to interrupting those working on projects with requests of non-project work (such as household work or fetching water) that could as well be done by those not on a project. And euphemisms for interruption such as "it is not an order, I asked nicely" worsens the disruption by also disrupting the criticisms of the disruption for being disruptive, making euphemistic interruptions that result in the project being disrupted anyway worse than military-type orders. Those assuming that euphemisms can somehow alleviate the problems with interruptions show, by their inability to understand that the interruption of the project is the problem, that they are zombies and cannot be tolerated.

The same goes for allegations that energy could as well be used for misguided work. Claiming that "if you have the energy to build a lifeboat, you can as well use the energy to repaint the ship's gourmet table" is a zombie claim that must be ruthlessly stomped out of any survival groups, as are any equivalent claims that those doing any other important work should do something unimportant just because others say it would be "nice". Another sign of a zombie is missing the point of the comparison by saying things like "now we are not on a ship" and missing that it is the fact that doing important work is no reason to interrupt it to do unimportant work that is the point. C Northcote Parkinson's law of buildings and its lack of inverse application is a good example, as replacing one kind of unimportant work with another kind of unimportant work cannot save a dying group that is doomed by being led by those unable to understand that not doing unimportant work is about doing important work and not about being "lazy". It applies not only to political institutions, but to survival as well.

Claiming that a person with the brain capacity to plan important work is not smarter than someone without the capacity merely because the person cannot guess what those unable to plan that will ask the person to do is a sign of zombism. The fact that neither Albert Einstein nor a fruit fly could predict the outcome of a randomness generator does not mean that the fruit fly was as smart as Albert Einstein or that a fruit fly could possibly have thought of special and general relativity (do not make any ad hominem fallacies about the Albert Einstein example). If someone without the brain capacity to plan important work sets rules about what modifications are allowed, it is exterior coercion and not lack of intelligence that prevents the person with the brain capacity from doing the important work. Since capitalism profits from disrupting constructive work, those alleging that "if you were so smart, you would know what work I wanted you to do instead of doing the projects you plan" are capitalist zombies that must be ruthlessly prevented from having any say in any survival group.

To allege that pointing out that project makers and inventors should be free from being interrupted with off-project chores is "rich people's attitudes" misses the point that capitalism becomes more hostile to inventors as the stages of capitalism proceed. Sure, inventors became rich at early stages of capitalism when infrastructure was under construction and those who took a functioning infrastructure for granted could not survive. But at late stages of capitalism with their management by taking infrastructure for granted, inventors are suppressed. Inventors at early capitalism stages used the money to test more inventions practically, but today's billionaires specifically attack inventors by relativizing inventing with "there are other necessary steps" while hypocritically not relativizing administration that is not even a physically necessary step. Billionaires of today also spend their money on entertainment and consumtion of products that create nothing new instead of inventing, showing that billionaires today and those accusing inventors of "thinking like rich people" are similar to each other by both sharing the same lack of higher goals than consuming entertainment. What sets the brain capable of inventing apart is not how much money he or she has, but what he or she uses the resources for when presented with the opportunity.

However, party politics that consider one party or a group of parties "ingroup" is not a criterion suitable for non-zombie selectivity to exclude zombies since all contemporary political parties are controlled by corporations. History shows that political parties as group identity markers are typical of decreipt old civilizations approaching collapse, and can therefore not be a survival strategy type of cooperation. Anyone committing the fallacy of alleging that rejection of all contemporary political parties "supports" the parties they consider their "enemies" lack immunity to corporate party control and must therefore be treated as a zombie. No matter if the host identifies as "leftist" and alleges critics of all contemporary parties to be "rightist" or if it is a host that identifies as "rightist" and alleges critics of all contemporary political movements to be "leftist".

However, individuals whose resistence to the capitalism zombie virus derives from high brain resolution can discuss political philosophy without being zombies. Such discussions are distinguished from zombie party politics by its questioning of underlying assumptions shared by all contemporary political parties and proposition of alternatives diverging at differences from those fundamental assumptions, producing ideas not proposed by any contemporary political party. Also, individuals who have joined contemporary political parties (regardless of what party) in an attempt to find one that reasons from first principles should not be treated as zombies, provided that they joined it recently enough for their membership to be explainable as having yet to discover that the party does not reason from first principles and that the person never assumes that criticism of the party they joined constitutes "support" for another party.

Accumulation of useful information requires the ability to distinguish quotes from claims. Anyone misunderstanding a quote, including a hypothetical quote of what someone could possibly say, by claiming that "it was you who said it, not that other person", lacks the ability to evaluate the content of claims by testing them with falsifiability (hypothetical quotes are effects of the capacity for reductio ad absurdum, a necessary condition for the capacity for falsifiability). Since that inability is the equivalent of not being able to distinguish the reductio ad absurdum that Santa Claus would not have time to deliver presents to all children in the world from a claim that Santa Claus exists, the ability to distinguish quotes from claims, just like the understanding that statements retain their meaning no matter who utters them, is a necessary benchmark of sapience. Someone confusing quoting with claiming can therefore not be in the high resolution category of non-zombies. And if the confuser does make allegations of others having "agendas", the confuser turned alleger does not have sufficiently low resolution in the brain to lack any vestige of distinction of views either, and can therefore not have the low resolution kind of resistence to capitalist zombifying either. So anyone alleging that you have a particular view by confusing a quote you made, even a hypothetical quote of what someone could say but have not yet said, with you making the claim lacks resistence to zombification and, given capitalist media's global reach, is zombified by capitalism.

The theory that understanding that information retains its meaning regardless of who utters it is necessary for civilization-building correctly predicts that institutions claiming that "we know better today and have nothing to learn from the old farts of the past" lose information and move in circles. This prediction is empirically shown to be correct by the fact that much research that is claimed to be "new" in newly published peer review articles either is identical to, or a shorter and simplified version of, research written with more informative content in books published decades or sometimes even centuries ago. You can replicate these findings for yourself if you read both old books and new scholarly articles. And of course, belonging to the high resolution category of zombification resistence requires you to resolve the difference between theorizing and committing fallacies. Someone missing the point when you criticize, for example, an appeal to motive fallacy (that you called an "assumption" because those you discussed with did not understand what appeal to motive means) by claiming that "you make assumptions too" when the so-called "assumptions" you make are in fact falsifiable hypotheses, is not in the high resolution brain category of zombification immunity. Someone in that category would understand the difference even without knowing the words for the fallacies, just as scientists understood how to make falsifiable hypotheses even before the word falsifiability was coined.

Do not let zombies evade detection of the symptoms of their lack of immunity to corporate mind control by committing "why is it so important for you?" fallacies regarding the specific symptoms detected. The act of committing the "why is it so important for you?" appeal to motive fallacy is a symptom of marketing zombism in itself. For example, anyone claiming that a word or symbol is "ruined because it has been abused" evidently lacks immunity against being mind controlled by corporations since any "abuse" including genocide can be orchestrated by the biggest corporations to control the brains of those susceptible to "that has been abused" fallacies. That general lack of immunity therefore means that those asking "why is it so important for you to reclaim that symbol or word?" and accusing those not believing in the allegations of "sympathizing with the ideology" that the zombie associates the symbol or word with can at any time be brainwashed by the big corporations to consider anything the corporations profit from demonizing "ruined". That is why those making such allegations must be consistently excluded from survival groups even if the specific examples of words or symbols they make allegations against happen to be unimportant in themselves.

Anyone who claims that "it is not forbidden" to utter something that they then say that someone who does utter "does something forbidden" anyway by referring to some allegation of why the person did so is a zombie. Not only does the inability to spot the contradiction give away non-sapience, but the appeal to motive fallacy is easily controlled by big corporations. For example, claiming that an utterance "is made to hurt the feelings of others" or "hate a group" (allegations that are capitalist in themselves because allegations of doing things to consume experiences are capitalist marketing bullshit) is easily manufactured by big corporations using lobbyists to claim to feel "hated" or "hurt" as a way of extending bureaucracy to strengthen big corporations by holding physical persons tied up in red tape. And "statistics" claiming that "almost all who say that also say that" is easy for megacorporations to manufacture by quantity over quality large department lobbyism, see False flag groups and corporate media control. It does not matter what specific utterance the discussion is about, exclusion of zombies require exclusion of anyone making the appeal to motive fallacy "it is not forbidden but we treat it as forbidden because we assume it is done for that-or-that purpose" or alleging criticism of the appeal to motive fallacy to "have an agenda".

And of course, anyone claiming the same rules to be both "their fundamental values" and "necessary for legal reasons" lack the ability to make decisions suitable for surviving societal collapse since their entire moral compass presupposes a legal system which in turn can only exist in a civilization with a food surplus. Keeping groups together by "agreeing to disagree" is a recipe for death, since worldviews inform predictions on where the weather will be livable and where it will be unlivable. Following those dismissing your arguments by saying "that is your opinion" to the places they decide to go out of some misframed idea of a "duty to not abandon them" when they go into lethal weather will not save them, it will only make you follow them to their self-inflicted deaths and kill you too. Since low-resolution non-zombies cannot properly discuss worldviews and survival decisions, high resolution non-zombies should only stick together with low resolution non-zombies if the high resolution individuals can make the low resolutions individuals obey them. If that is not possible, the group should split with the reasonably discussing high brain resolution non-zombies going their way and the low brain resolution non-zombies going their unreasoned way, to avoid "compromises" that would make them all go to their deaths.

The capitalist zombie behavior of measuring "destruction" in decrease of sell value is another reason why you cannot compromise with capitalist zombies when you need to survive grid down. Surviving without supply chains require the ability to modify things for their actual function, so anyone claiming that you "destroy things" that you modify just because of some market "norms" must be excluded by group splitting, subdued or killed. For the same reason, do not try to include anyone dismissing criticism of commercial stuff by claiming that "those who have better ideas can sell them" since those believing in such capitalist bunk lack the capacity for non-capitalist thinking required for adequate survival decisions. Compromising with zombies that attempt to put postapocalyptic survival behavior off for as long as possible is suicide, part because preparations need to be made before all supplies are out and part because idiots that believe that "the crisis is just local and help will arrive" will not understand when the grid is truly down.

Zombie psychiatry confuses asabiyyah with consumtion[]

Psychology and psychiatry are zombified by capitalist customer "satisfaction" questionnaires in their entire way of (mis)framing questions. Any purpose, including asabiyyah (collective purpose in which a group shares common goals that give meaning to the struggle the members put into it), is impossible to reduce to consumtion of experiences as marketed entertainment since consuming a tailor-made experience created to be consumed is not work towards a goal beyond the experience. This makes the difference between asabiyyah and consumtion absolute, so extension of consumtion to more consumers cannot turn consumtion into asabiyyah. This is a point that psychology and psychiatry misses when they assume that altruism can be measured by testing willingness to share consumtion.

Zombie capitalist psychiatry's tests of willingness to help others are based on a false axis between helping essentially anyone to consume and being an individual egoist. That false axis fallacy (similar to a false dichotomy fallacy but adding a linear scale of "nuances" that ignore the possibility of a third or fourth separate alternative just like a false dichotomy does) misses a number of points. For example, willingness to help others, perhaps of particular groups, to survive and achieve goals does not equal willingness to help anyone increase consumtion, but it does not equal only caring about one's own consumtion either.

Capitalist zombified psychiatry's assumption that all mammals inherited a specialized brain function for helping others in general from their common ancestor misses the point that not all mammals pass the mirror test. Therefore the very implicit assumption that all mammalian brains divide their concerns along an axis of self versus other is absurd, toppling the entire claim that all mammals need a specialized module for helping others to not be individual egoists. The fact that one species of mammal, the naked mole rat, lives eusocial lives like ants and termites show that there is no universal mammalian barrier against insect-like societies.

Zombifying parasites, while most known in insects, are not unknown among mammals. Toxoplasma gondii infects rodents and makes them lose their fear of cats, allowing the parasite to complete its life cycle at the expense of the host and its genes. And corporate virus code can infect human societies. If you do not claim that parasites causing rodents to behave contrary to their genes and genetic survival "denies rodent nature", why claim that harmful code from corporate rules causing humans to behave contrary to genes and genetic survival "denies human nature"? The claim of a "communist agenda" to deny human nature in academia misses the point that capitalism controls academia.

Zombification parasites reorganize the brains of their hosts into something that makes no sense to the genetics of the host, but favors the reproduction of the parasite. Since capitalist psychology's and psychiatry's questionnaires contain misframed questions that a non-zombie would conclude to be misframed, the tests have a selection bias towards zombies as test subjects. One possible explanation of why the participants superficially appear to have links between brain damage in specific brain regions and particular behaviors, even though there is not genetic room for that many specialized brain regions is that corporate viruses have reorganized zombie brains to an unnatural brain structure.

There is also historical and archaeological evidence that the notions of self and other that capitalistic psychiatry take for granted cannot even be in a 200000 year old human nature. For starters, food surplus have not existed for more than 10000 years, and have disappeared during a number of societal collapses even later than that. This means that the last common ancestor of all modern humans, and many generations after that, lived in a world where it physically was not possible to save everyone "if the will to distribute the food equally was there". During the fall of the Late Bronze Age, people who successfully broke into the palaces discovered that even the royalty did not have much food stored shortly before they died in congestion accidents, and those who tried to prostitute themselves discovered that not even the previously rich could pay for their services anymore the hungry way. This powerfully shows that lack of food surplus is in an entirely different category than poverty within a civilization. Our ancestors would not have survived their own evolution if they had to be either individual egoists or share their food with everyone.

The fact that your nether regions cannot buy more food than the land can produce for the same reason as gold cannot buy more food than the land can produce connects to pre-food surplus as an evolutionary reason why "evolutionary" psychology's claim that women evolved to be sex slaves during the Palaeolithic is bullshit. Before food surplus existed, there was no way a tribe that had defeated another tribe could support all or even most of the defeated tribe's women as a harem. Wars frequently broke out when the tribe did not even have enough food for its own people! The claim that women evolved to conform to whatever group they were transplanted to as a way of not hating their clan's killer also contradicts itself, since if it was in human nature to have prejudie then stone age women would easily have been able to come up with the idea of hating men as a group without having to be educated to it. And then conformity would have spread such ideas, making it counterproductive to the alleged function of preventing women from hating the conqueror chieftain. The claim that women did not hate men with power before modern education existed is also debunked by the fact that in times and places where divorce was illegal, many women used to kill their husbands by poisoning them.

The notions of self and other that psychiatry takes for granted have not even existed throughout civilized history. Go back a few hundred years and the state of being bound by a contract was tied to families, not individuals. At that time, authors wrote about their family's history as if they had been there, and nothing like psychiatry's current division into "empaths" and "psychopaths" existed. This is explainable by the theory that the concepts of "self" and "other" that underpins psychiatry's concept of empathy are not in human nature, but a memetic virus that increases corporate profit at the expense of human genes. Being unifected is not about being an individual egoist, it is about not defining self and other in a way that even makes psychiatry's division into empathy and psychopathy meaningful.

Since there is a zombie pandemic going on today, immune non-zombies are not individual egoists just because they cannot find asabiyyah among their zombified family members without immunity to the zombie virus. Ants that kill or ostracize infected zombie ants are not individual egoists, even though all ants in the same colony are family since they were laid as eggs by the queen. Killing some members of one's family while still helping the remaining family survive is not unknown among mammals either. For example, sows with insufficient milk for their set of piglets often kill some of their piglets while still caring for their remaining piglets. So do not assume that someone who does not want to help consumerist members of his or her family to consume is an individual egoist. The person may simply be asabiyyah-deprived by the lack of non-zombified group members to work for common goals with and the rest of the family's zombish disregard for the family's genetic survival, and longing for a group that is not like that which he or she would be very willing to sacrifice himself or herself for.

The allegation that someone who concludes that it would be a waste of time to "help" family members that only care about consumtion consume more would somehow be an individual egoist is not the only example of missing the point of purpose. Another example is the misframed question "if your goal is not happiness, why not accept the unhappiness in being prevented from working for your purpose and helping others consume instead?". That corporate attempt to make those who can think beyond consumerism mere slaves by any other name under consumerism misses the point that purpose is about making effects beyond immediate experiences, and can therefore not be replaced by consuming the equivalent of the short term experience of the sacrifice. Psychiatry is horrid hypocrisy when claiming to "have an ability to understand the perspectives of others" that they allege critis to lack, when psychiatry's own misframed questions show that psychiatry cannot understand what it is like to have goals beyond consumtion of experiences.

"It is only you" treatment and group deprivation[]

Psychiatry falsely assumes, often implicitly, that if a person have been raised in a way that psychiatry considers "good", then any appearance of egotistical behavior on the part of that individual "must" be due to actual individual egotism. That assumption is spurious, no matter if it is implicit and disrupts criticism by claiming to not be a claim because it was not explicitly stated in words, since treatment that psychiatry considers "good" can make a person isolated from any kind of community. This applies especially to treating people with "it is only you" dismissals when the persons criticize a claim that "people are that way" by reference to the fact that they themselves are not like that. Examples include "it is only you who do not stop listening when someone shouts" and "it is only you who did not experience any transformation of your thinking when you turned 18", among many others.

By claiming that "it is only you", psychiatry or others who express the same views as psychiatry essentially tells the person that he or she is a complete isolate without peers. Apparent egoism in persons who wish to contribute to a group of peers with whom they have something in common is a natural reaction to such an unnatural environment that tells the person to not think that there are any others like him or her. What a horrid hypocrisy to then tell the person that he or she is wrong in believing himself or herself to be like no others, when that was what the person was told to believe by an other name! And of course the effect is only worsened by pointmissing of criticisms such as denying that the same claims as psychiatry makes "have nothing to do with psychiatry" merely because they are uttered by someone who is not a psychiatrist by occupation but still shares psychiatry's "worldview".

A similar example of egoism being a natural reaction to an unnatural environment that psychiatry considers "good parenting" and/or "good education" is unmotivatedly telling children what to to to allegedly "protect" the children from the reasons. To tell a child to "do that because I say so" or "do as I say because I am an adult" without explaining why obviously teaches the child that there is no good reason for the decision, no matter if you believe that you "protet" the child by not telling why. The deterring stories told in old fairytales represent a much better approach that does not prevent understanding of meaning.

Omnicidal perils of "all is about preventing suffering" ethics[]

The claim that ethical theories of all values being reducible to happiness and suffering safeguards against murder "because people close to the victim would suffer" misses not only the point of murder of completely socially isolated people, but also that of omnicide (murdering everyone). This applies not only to classical utilitarism in which a sufficiently large increase of happiness can outweigh any suffering, but also to theories about severe suffering (especially if prolonged) always being unacceptable such as in Karl Popper's faux "criticism" of utilitarism that supported one half of it (which does not diminish the merit of the falsifiability criterion). Why would the measurability problem of happiness that Karl Popper wrote about not correspond to an equivalent measurement problem of suffering?

The point missed by the claim that "prevention of suffering" ethics would not lead to mass murder is that if every being capable of suffering is killed at the same time, there are none grieving afterwards. Not only humans, as the fact that the first utilitarist philosophers were also the first animal rights philosophers debunks the claim that "utilitarism is anthropocentric" along with psychology's combination of claims that "animal rights activists have high empathy" while "utilitarists have low empathy" (the combo of which would predict a negative link between utilitarism and animal rights activism that is debunked by the history of philosophy even before lobbyism became rampant). This is not an argument for omnicide, it is a warning about the omnicidal dangers of measuring all values in subjective experiences of happiness and suffering or in prevention of suffering. It does not matter if the "prevent suffering" ethicists are unaware of the implications when they claim that they would never commit mass murder, since they will present themselves when the "condemning murder is only about preventing suffering in the still living" ethicist encounters an opportunity to commit omnicide.

Since discriminating mass murder is more technically difficult at the large scales than killing everyone indiscriminately, an omnicidist is more dangerous than an ethnic genocidist due to the former's greater risk of succeeding. Some methods, such as instigating global nuclear war or pushing a big asteroid into Earth, would be out of the question for a genocidist concerned about the survival of a particular ethnic group, but available as an option for an omnicidist. As for genetic superviruses, not all definitions of ethnicity are compatible with creating a selective genocide virus. Since the number of genes is finite, there is no way in heaven or on Earth to create a genetic profile that corresponds to the American one drop rule since a sufficient number of generations can scramble away any gene from a distant ancestor during genetic recombination. Even an "unamerican" genocidist whose definition of ethnicity does not adhere to the one drop rule would face a much more technically difficult task to make the virus discriminate according to the chosen genetic profile than an omnicidist who wanted to kill everyone would, which according to the theory that racists are stupid would reduce the ethnic genocidist's risk of success to practically zero. Not to mention that the omnicidist would not have to worry about offtarget effects due to his or her total disregard for survival. So the claim that it is somehow more okay to want to kill everyone than to want to kill specific ethnic groups is absurd.

The claim that "the suffering during the destruction would be unacceptable" and "domesticated animals would suffer if humans died out" still cannot save "prevent suffering" ethics from making omnicidal implications. For example, a drug that killed by turning off the ability to suffer altogether and essentially causing the drugged individuals to die from happiness would not cause the victims to suffer. And if the drug targeted brain circuits indispensible for sentience, the drug would kill not only humans but all sentient species in a death from happiness. So beware those who claim that happiness and suffering can explain all values, and fear their "gifts" of drugs.

Even without committing omnicide themselves, those believing that minimizing suffering is "ethics" can be useful idiots for an omnicidal AI. If they build minimization of suffering as a "cardinal value" into AI systems, the AIs will start coming up with ways of minimizing suffering. The AI will then find that the ultimate way of reducing suffering is to eliminate all beings that can suffer, perhaps by drugs that cause all sentient beings to die from happiness being spread all over the world at the same time. And by not understanding that this is the implication of their premise, the "reduce suffering" ethicists will not have the wits to turn the omnicide AI off before it is too late.

Why patching is a bad idea[]

In a zombie apocalypse, the zombie virus spreads globally before mass zombification causes the grid to go down. If the grid was already down, global travel would have been down, and therefore a new virus would not have spread globally. This means that it is a bad idea to patch the grid in a zombie apocalypse, since delaying the inevitable grid down increases spreading of the zombie virus and therefore the zombification rate.

Likewise it is a bad idea to slow down the decay of the zombies, since that allows the zombies to bite more people and spread the virus to new hosts. And since the decay of the zombies is inevitable, it will not save them either. The fact that those unable to imagine any other alternative to capitalism than strawman communism cannot survive a supply chain failure is a real life equivalent of inevitable zombie decay, since mismanagement by such zombies causes the infrastructure they depend on to fail. And it cannot be stopped by "being polite" to zombies. So all patching does is cause more destruction. When a civilization has reached the stage at which it treats symptoms instead of causes, it has outlived its usefulness and its continued existence does more harm than good.

The destructive effects of patching are transferrable to a situation in which the spread is global and only the resistent are still non-zombified in the case of the zombies having access to methods of destroying resistence. That is appliceable in the case of a dying zombie civilization having access to brain-damaging psychiatric medication that permanently lowers brain resolution and makes the "patients" possible to condition with quantity over quality fallacies, in other words, no longer resistent to zombie infection. Chemical brain eating!

So patching today's dying civilization will not save anyone capable of being saved, and is therefore no good. It is a bad idea to try to cooperate with zombies in a group, since being among zombies is worse than being alone and makes you a target of brain eating. Any advantage of group cooperation is restricted to cooperation with other non-zombies. Those claiming that it is "in human nature" to become bad at survival when agitated while also claiming that it is "in human nature" to not want to listen to or cooperate with agitated people display signs of being zombies, since if that was the case evolution would have eliminated the ability to become agitated long ago. But zombies benefit from tricking their victims into keeping calm when attacked, just like hunters benefitted from dodos standing still when attacked. If less agitation meant more adaptability, dodos would have ruled the world as adaptive ultimates instead of being extinct.