为什么我这么懂呢，因为我也爱看阴谋论，尤其是猎奇小故事。我自己也是极右，对于发动国民和煽动仇恨也有刚需，正因为如此，才会如此深刻的知道中美欧日韩都是财迷社会，所以根本不可能真的为了任何意识形态打起来的事实，已经没有一二战时人类还散发着清澈的愚蠢好发动的土壤了。

我清楚的记得，第一波魔怔是欧洲难民危机的时候白女成为黑男和穆斯林男性性奴的故事，

第二波是希拉里邪教吃人，白左企业地下室有被拐卖的白人儿童等待解救，当时还真有个去闯连锁餐饮店被捕的。

至此，反白左核心元素逐渐成型，吃人+性奴，二战前对犹太人编的，全部编到敌人头上。

第三波萝莉岛未成年卖淫案，一开始是民主党涉及，红脖子狂喜，设定越加越多，现在结果怎么万寿无疆的川普和永远健康的马斯克也在里面，要临时改设定吗。

第四波就是中国牢A也偷学了这套传播方法，也是美国各种非人，匪夷所思，猎奇，都偷偷捂着某个秘密。

只不过中美国民都是狡猾的虽然吃了煽动仇恨这一套，但对真的大战和断交是没有任何情愿活动的。因为话又说回来了，要赚钱的嘛。

因为不懂司法定性和确实智商有问题，幽默老美和老中的国民普遍是这样理解和编造这个案件：

这个岛是个大监狱，受害者根本出不去。

这个岛因为提供包括性服务在内的服务，所以无论什么男女被邀请，上去都是为了嫖。

因为有未成年，所以全是未成年。

爱泼斯坦特别厉害，之前没被曝光是因为手眼通天。实际上是受害者去县警局报案就拿下了，之前不报案也是害怕自己丢脸和涉及性交易被捕，一开始对他的立案也是组织卖淫。

以及：转反了

防止抬杠，先说一下：首先把M用在社科领域比喻确实是霍金创的。

左左认为国民党反动，因为压迫其他民族。我也认为国民党反动，因为没兑现民族主义初心。

左左认为中共反动，因为已经变成特权阶级和放弃革命。我也认为中共反动。

左左认为应该解放女性，因为男女平等。我也认为应该解放女性，因为女性很弱，一个男人同时打5个同体量女的很容易，这么弱的生物还天天针对搞了几千年，废物不废物啊，去阉了吧。

左左认为应该红旗插遍世界，主权和国界就是统治者为了防止人们联合发明的概念。我也认为应该蓝旗插遍世界，主权和国界就是统治者为了防止人们联合发明的概念。

左左认为应该国民高福利，我也认为应该国民高福利。

左左认为日本军国主义还没根除，应该被指导一番。我也认为日本应该割地赔款给中国人。

左左认为科技无用，中美都在用科技掩盖民生的恶化，我也认为科技无用，中美都在用科技掩盖民生的恶化。

左左认为应该全民皆兵，时刻准备着为了党和国家利益冲锋。我也认为应该全民皆兵，时刻准备着为了民族的尊严和利益冲锋。

汉族，天选进步神族。全球15亿总人口，凑不出一个民族国家的废物。

跑路也有很多种，瓦格纳跑路海外建立私人军阀武装，对普京中央半忠半反。俄罗斯寡头跑路，资助俄国流亡议会组织和FBK，现成各级流亡官员班子随时可以接班。

何况跑路也不只是欧美，如果有比较强的意识形态追求，跑路台湾搞光复大陆那一套一样立的住，只是汉族资本家想了想关我毛事还是睡大觉好了，因为其实根本就没形成民族国家。

Gemini 3 Flash：

未知轮回：

这是一道非常经典的逻辑推理题，其核心在于通过文中看似琐碎的日常对话（尤其是“番外篇”和“闲聊”部分）推导出隐藏的生理事实和人物身份。

以下是针对该谜题的深度解析：

核心反转：小寞的真实身份

通过番外篇中楚梦和徐雨的对话，我们可以得到两个关键线索：

生理期禁忌：女性在生理期不能吃辣，也不能吃减肥药。

小寞的行为：在第六章“晚宴”中，小寞吃了辛辣的烤肉（撒了大量调料）；在第二章“荼毒”中，河右给小寞吃“减肥药”。

结论：小寞并不是女性，或者说她没有女性的生理周期。结合“两年前的火灾”和“DH的死亡”，可以推导出：小寞就是当年的DH，且DH原本是男性。

1 小寞的毒杀案？手法？

凶手：L

手法：银针刺穴/毒针。

解析：

在第一轮轮回（巴士）中，小寞死于后颈的银针。

动机：L是唯一一个在高中时期就认识小寞（DH）的人。他曾深爱DH，但当他发现现在的“小寞”只是幻为了满足私欲，通过整容和药物（减肥药实际上是雌性激素）强行将男性的DH改造而成的“玩偶”时，L产生了幻灭感。

L在隧道黑暗中出手。emp提到的“呼吸道无灰尘”证明小寞在汽车急刹车（扬起灰尘）前已经死亡。

2 小寞的溺死案？手法？

凶手：吸血鬼（受L指使或合谋）

手法：利用潮汐表定时溺杀。

解析：

吸血鬼的工作是研究“潮汐时刻表”。

小寞身上的“三道勒痕”说明她是被捆绑后放置在海滩上的。凶手利用涨潮淹死了无法动弹的小寞。

动机：吸血鬼家里的双人份生活用品和模糊的结婚照暗示他与DH（小寞）有着非同寻常的关系（可能是真正的恋人或知情者）。他无法忍受小寞被幻控制。

3 小寞的硬伤案？手法？

凶手：幻

手法：钝器击打头部。

解析：

这是第三次轮回。当幻意识到小寞（DH）的自我意识开始觉醒（写日记、拒绝亲热），或者发现秘密即将败露时，他选择了亲手毁掉这个作品。

幻头部的伤是自残，用来伪装成受害者。小寞“面带微笑”是因为她终于从这种扭曲的身份和幻的控制中解脱了。

4 两年前的火灾究竟有何隐情？

真相：这是一场为了“身份转换”而策划的人为纵火。

凶手：幻

目标：DH（男性的他）

动机： 幻对DH有着近乎变态的占有欲。他不仅想要DH，还想要把DH变成他理想中的女性形象（小寞）。

过程：两年前，幻放火伪造了DH的死亡现场。实际上，他救出了DH，并利用火灾造成的毁容（小寞后脑勺的疤痕其实是植皮或手术痕迹）为借口，对DH进行了全身整容和变性手术。

隐情：小寞长期服用的“减肥药”其实是雌性激素，用来维持女性特征。幻通过这种方式，将好友DH变成了自己的未婚妻小寞。

总结

这是一个关于**“扭曲的爱与强制改造”**的悲剧。

幻是始作俑者，他通过火灾和手术创造了“小寞”。

L是清醒的痛苦者，他在不断的轮回中试图寻找救赎，却发现无论如何小寞都难逃一死。

**小寞（DH）**是整场阴谋中最可怜的牺牲品，她的微笑代表了死亡才是唯一的解脱。

关键线索补遗：

色盲隐喻：萧紫荆提到的色盲问题，隐喻了“认知偏差”。在幻的世界里，他把男性的DH看作女性的小寞，并强迫所有人接受这个设定。

棉袄线索：幻在夏天穿着棉袄，是为了掩盖杀人时溅在身上的大量血迹。

光棍节割喉案：

1 解释死亡遗言

死者谢峰在墙上留下的“K”具有双重含义：

拆解含义： “K”可以拆解为一个垂直的直线“I”和一个侧向的“<”（或看作V）。在罗马数字中，I代表1，V代表5。这指向了住在1号床的张逸和5号床的赵巫。

身份含义： 谢峰电脑里有一个“王子”（Prince）文件夹，而在扑克牌中，比王子（J/Q）更高一级的是国王（K，King）。谢峰意识到一直以来在网上戏弄、掌控他的“李莫云”其实就是身边的赵巫，赵巫才是这段关系里的“国王”。

日期含义： K是第11个字母，案发当天正是11月11日，暗示了凶手利用光棍节聚会作案。

2 解释动机

赵巫（主谋）： 嫉妒与报复。赵巫出身平凡（渔民家庭），而谢峰是傲慢的富二代。赵巫表面上是谢峰的好友，实则在心理上通过伪造身份“李莫云”在网上玩弄谢峰的感情（猫鼠游戏）。谢峰近期精神恍惚、想要自杀，正是因为被“李莫云”折磨。谢峰在案发前可能通过PS图片或医院体检（发现自己被下药或精神受控）察觉了赵巫的真面目。

张逸（从犯）： 情杀。张逸和谢峰曾是情敌，他深爱文羽却输给了谢峰。他一直对谢峰怀恨在心，被赵巫怂恿或拉拢后参与作案。

3 指出凶手

凶手是：赵巫（5号床）与 张逸（1号床）。

4 详细说明杀人手法、作案过程和现场形成过程

准备阶段： 赵巫利用谢峰对他的信任，在聚会的酒中加入了安眠药。除了谢峰（为了让他保持清醒受死）和清玉（她提前离开，且凶手无法控制她的饮酒量）外，其余人都喝下了带有安眠药的酒。

作案过程：

凌晨5-6点，众人熟睡。张逸和赵巫起身，先用鞋带捆绑住谢峰的四肢。

关键细节： 谢峰有洁癖且喜欢加工金属件，他床位的南侧栏杆是可拆卸的。为了方便割喉且不让血迹溅满栏杆（留下擦拭痕迹），凶手拆掉了南侧栏杆。

血迹形成： 凶手在南侧实施割喉。由于南侧栏杆被拆除，血液直接喷溅到了南侧墙面和北侧的天花板、墙壁及5号床。现场南侧栏杆没有血迹，但原本被栏杆遮住的墙面区域却有血迹，这证明喷溅发生时栏杆不在原位。

搬运凶器： 杀人后，为了不让凶器留在宿舍（宿舍已锁门，且有监控），他们利用了李山（4号床）的四翼航模飞机。

“蜜蜂鸣叫”： 邻居听到的声音正是航模飞行的声音。凶手将短刀（带环）挂在航模上，操控飞机飞出窗外，将刀丢弃在15米外的实习工厂废料堆中（废料堆多为金属，能干扰发现并掩盖刀上的金属反应）。

善后阶段： 凶手重新装回栏杆。当卞季（6号床）醒来报警后，张逸和赵巫借口“脸上溅了血太恶心”去洗脸，实际上是为了洗掉作案时喷溅在身上的大量血迹（他们站位最近，身上的血迹远多于“溅到一点”的程度）。

5 证据

姓名解谜： “李莫云”三个字包含了赵巫的名字。

李（木、子）、莫（艹、日、大）、云（二、厶）。

组合：子 + 日 + 二 = 昭（赵的同音或拆解，暗指赵）；木 + 艹 + 大 + 厶 = 巫。

血迹反常： 现场血迹自然完整，唯独南侧栏杆无血，而栏杆后的墙面有血，证明栏杆在喷溅时被移除，只有同宿舍且熟悉谢峰床铺构造的人才能做到。

药物反应： 只有死者和清玉（已离开）没中安眠药，而其他“目击者”都中了药。作为“发现者”的张逸和赵巫如果也中了药，不可能在5-6点精准作案并清醒地去洗脸。

航模与噪音： 邻居听到的“蜜蜂声”与李山的航模特征吻合，且凶器上的“环”正是为了方便航模钩挂运输。

死者指甲： 死者指缝里的墙灰证明他在挣扎中抓挠了墙壁，留下了指向凶手的“K”字。

洗脸行为： 在如此恐怖的命案现场，正常人的反应是惊恐瘫坐，而两人却有条不紊地结伴去洗脸，这是极度冷静的灭证行为。

中共现在和西方打擂台的原因已经是为了确保国企和私企都实现出海利润最大化，确保产业升级（牵头的基本都是私企），可以说早就已经亡党亡国了，性质和现在既不光复大陆，又想独立的中华民国一样。

未知轮回

序

幻又在梦中回想起，自己一直在照料着的好友的父亲，他被那男人紧紧抓住，那是一双瘦骨嶙峋的饱经沧桑的手。

“我经历了两次不幸的婚姻……这样的童年对L很不公平。你是他最好的朋友了，之后帮我好好照顾L。谢谢你……”他用虚弱的声音说。

…………

……

L失魂地站在墓地中间，四周一片寂静，他献上了一束黄玫瑰，感叹道：“已经两年了……那场灾祸对于我来说是救赎还是审判呢……”

他默默地走开，墓碑上留下了DH生前惹人怜爱的笑脸……

…………

……

河右孤零地坐在床头，默默地翻看着相册，陶醉在其中。那是她从小到大的回忆，有欢乐、有委屈、有努力、有离别。

而当她又打开一页，却不知看到了什么，表情瞬间冷淡，一旁趴着假寐的金毛似乎也被这突如其来的寒意惊醒……

…………

……

吸血鬼小心翼翼地夹起一小块菜叶，体贴地送到对面的碗里：“多吃点，对你的身体要好。”

他露出了温柔的微笑，沉浸在浓浓的幸福之中。

…………

……

喵喵整理着自己搜集的信息:五年前她一直是个开朗的女孩，两年前她失恋了，一个月后经历了一场火灾整个人都变得阴郁起来，去年她参加了自己生父的葬礼……难道这就是真相吗…… ………… ……

emp缓缓地接起电话，“你好。”

“嗯，没错。”

“呼吸道里如果没有大量灰尘，确实可以说明死者在之前已经死亡了……”

“什么！？你说的是真的吗？” ………… ……

小寞扒开自己左后脑勺上的头发，一道疤痕赫然显露出来，那里已经不长头发了，还好可以被旁边的覆盖住，但却仍是小寞心中永远的痛……

“这里是怎么了？”幻轻抚着背对自己躺着的小寞，温柔地问。

“两年前，被商场货架上掉落的箱子砸到的……”小寞幽幽地说。 ………… ……

一 承诺

一副高挑秀丽的身材，一张妩媚俊俏的脸蛋。站在几米外仿佛都能嗅到她周围淡淡的香气，不令人反感，却沁人心脾。她走出的士，优雅地关上门，冲L所在的方向微笑，那一瞬间仿佛是天使降临……

那就是小寞了，幻的未婚妻。L这样对自己说。

昨天，幻在机场嘱咐L道：“我会尽快在晚上赶到，你一定帮我保护好小寞。”

L拍拍自己的胸脯：“好的，小寞交给我你就放心吧，再怎么说……我们以前也是校友，虽然没有……说过话……”

“兄弟的承诺我当然放心。”

“你们很快就要结婚了吧……这次之后会把小寞接回来吗？”

“是的，当然。”幻说。

幻和L在同一所大学，才认识两年，就成了彼此信赖的朋友。这次外出露营的活动也是两人发起的，为了让幻和小寞在终身大事之前再疯狂地玩上一次，一些同学也来凑热闹。

emp是幻在中学时代互相欣赏的朋友，吸血鬼是在美国读的初中，而高中则是回国和幻在同一班级。L和小寞在高中时同校不同班。河右是小寞从初中开始就一直最要好的闺蜜，而喵喵则是L的同班同学。如今，除了L和幻在一所大学以外，小寞、河右、喵喵和吸血鬼四人也在同一所大学。

在两个人计划这次活动的时候，幻总是不由自主地陷入黯然神伤的状态，L知道他又在思念DH了。

DH和幻两个人的感情非常好，从小一起长大，有过很多荒诞冒险的经历和可笑露骨的故事，彼此嬉闹挖苦却又信任依赖对方，他们之间很有默契，总是心照不宣，用一些没人懂得口吻对话。终于在高中毕业时两人互相倾诉衷肠，承诺相知相守一辈子，却好景不长，DH在同年的一场火灾事故中……丧生了……

“别想了，珍惜眼前的人吧……”L每次都这样忧伤地拍拍幻的肩膀，虽然在他认识幻时，DH已经从幻的身边离开了，但L却可以深深地体会到朋友的那种伤痛。幻每天仍依旧把自己的快乐献给周围的人，那些沉重的往事，只埋在心底。“至少……你现在有小寞……”

要保护好小寞，这是对幻的承诺，我一定要让她安全地见到幻。L走在小寞的身边，不住地对自己暗示。

“你怎么了？”小寞轻言细语，“是坐巴士去营地而已，不用这么紧张吧？”小寞的声音如银铃般有令人魂不守舍的魔力。

她是幻的未婚妻……L转头看了小寞一眼，又这样对自己说。

马路的另一面，吸血鬼和他的几个朋友们围聚在一团。

“哇塞！看对面那个美女！”其中一人看到小寞低呼道，“真是极品呀！”

“好想把她抱在怀里！”另一个人闭上眼睛开始幻想，手渐渐地揽起了旁边人的腰，“那感觉肯定……”他刚开始想象，便打了个颤。

“真想上去亲她一口……”又一个人说，“我猜她的吻味道肯定是甜的……”居然流出了口水。

吸血鬼听到这些评论，脸上晃过了一丝得意的表情，还没有被人注意到又马上正颜厉色起来：“你们有幻想症吗？”大家都一脸鄙夷地回应道：“装正经！”

人总是会有各种各样不切实际的幻想，用来聊以自慰，无可厚非。但要谨记的是，眼前的一切都只是幻象，千万不要坠入其中把它与现实混淆，否则将难以自拔……

吸血鬼笑笑说：“小寞你们也见到啦，送我到这里就可以了，快回去吧！”

“刚刚那些人都是你的朋友吗？”

“嗯，一群狐朋狗友。”虽然小寞刚刚没有听到对面的谈话，但吸血鬼还是略有愧疚地这样说道。

“在研究所的工作怎么样?”L问道。

吸血鬼苦笑着摇头：“还不是整天和各式各样的潮汐时刻表打交道，能怎么样。”

三个人走到巴士车的时候，河右和喵喵也刚刚到，正在车门口等着L和小寞。

“小寞寞！”河右才看见小寞就朝她扑去，紧紧地搂住，两个小辫子高高甩起，脖子上挂着个奇怪的长长的哨子也晃来晃去，萌翻了的样子，两人要好的感情一目了然。

喵喵只是站在原地，看着走来的三人，轻轻地捋着头发，想着自己的心事。

已经坐在车上戴着耳机的emp，则沉默地用审视的目光看着他们每一个人……

而此时此刻，幻正在机场等着赶往营地的飞机，他万万没有想到，此时危险的氛围已经开始朝小寞笼罩开来……

二 荼毒

租来的巴士是小型的，除了驾驶和副驾驶座，后面最多能坐下10个人。车的左边是双人位，右边是单人位，中间隔着过道，最后一排是四人位。座位偏硬，套是深蓝色配银白花纹的，而且座位很高，令人一点也没法看见坐在前排人的头顶。

喵喵见人已经到齐了就最先上了车，她站在车中间，定睛看了车最末的emp一眼，最后自己选择了坐在中间靠窗的位置。河右拉着小寞一直聊个不停，也不知道哪里有那么多好说的，L只好先上车了，他坐在了喵喵的前面，也是靠窗的。

“给，每次都得给你带减肥药！”河右递给小寞几块药片，“先把今天的吃了吧。”

“我回去再吃……”小寞接过来，并冲河右使了使眼色，笑着说，“咱们也赶快上车吧！”她从心底里感谢，有这么一个热情真诚的朋友，真的很幸福。

“哦哦！懂！”河右转身蹦跳着上了车，脖子上那个奇怪的哨子随着她的脚步在空中跳跃,小寞在身后看着她滑稽的样子又笑了起来。谁知河右刚上去就一个趔趄滑倒在了L的座位旁边。

正在欣赏外面风景的L，听到这动静又马上转过身，小寞也在河右身后扶她，并温柔大方地问：“右右，没事吧？”

“嗯？”河右抬起头，瞥了眼一旁的L，抿抿嘴，脸色有点尴尬，“没……没什么……”她连站好都来不及便赶紧坐到后面，喵喵旁边去了。

吸血鬼是最后上车的人，由于很多位置都已经坐满的原因，他只好坐到emp的前面，和喵喵她们并排。

L头抵着窗户，他仿佛注意到吸血鬼在路过时偷偷地瞄了小寞一眼，那眼神里竟饱含暧昧和温情。也或许是自己看错了吧，因为小寞一点反应都没有，她轻轻地从包里拿出一本书后坐下，身体前倾，细细地读起来。

“开车看书对眼睛不好。”L提醒道。

“没关系的，你也知道，习惯了。”小寞柔和地说。

“不用管啦，她很小时候就有这毛病啦。”河右在座位后面说。

“美女也总有些陋习的嘛！”喵喵开玩笑说，小寞听到脸颊微微泛红，惭愧地笑了。

“唉？”L扭过头，从两个椅子中间朝后面看去，“你们怎么换位置了？”

“因为我和你一样，有些晕车的说……”河右不好意思地举手。

“我是怕玩手机的时候胳膊会碍到别人。”L解释道。

“别辩解啦，晕车就是晕车！”

“哦……好吧……”L不想执着于这个话题，继续朝窗外望去，仿佛有心事的样子，不再说话了。

emp听着歌，看起来已经在座位上睡着了。吸血鬼从后面则是时而发呆，时而看看小寞。

这时巴士经过一个地道，里面非常的黑暗，喵喵和河右叫着抱在了一起。一直在睡觉的emp睁开了眼，摘下了耳机。吸血鬼则没有任何动静。 隧道过去了。

小寞抬着头，书被合拢了，她看了L一眼，又立即别过脸去。L的表情木住了，他瞧着自己手上被捏出的红印，心想：“刚才……她……握住了我的手吗……？”

河右把脑袋伸回车里，抱怨道：“那个隧道里是什么味啊！现在空气总算是好多了……”

“吱——”L还在疑惑刚才的事，突然一个急刹车，他的脑袋撞到了前面的座位，等车子速度降低，马上又朝后倒在了座位上。“啊——”车内也随之传来了一阵不满的叫声，“司机唉，这是怎么了？”

“刚突然跑过一条大狗……”司机蓝天说着慢慢把速度提起来，还打趣地说，“可惜我没有看清楚是什么品种……哈哈……”

“右右，你跟小寞很早之前就认识了吗？”喵喵问。

“是啊……我们从小，就一直是很好很好很好的朋友……”河右说，看起来心情很沉重的样子，“小寞是我见过的最漂亮的女孩儿，一直都是……几乎每个男生都喜欢她……”

“她总是那么可爱、善良、美丽，就像一个天使一样，带给她身边的人温暖和快乐……她总是那样的耀眼……我能做她的朋友，真的很开心……”河右说着却不知为何竟有些哽咽了。

L静静地看着身边的小寞，她仰头躺在座位上，眼睛微闭。L心想，这家伙，不知道什么时候睡着的，想必是看书看累了吧。虽然小寞长得非凡的漂亮，但睡觉的姿势也跟常人差不多，并没有那么优雅哈……L心里偷偷地笑着。

“喂！”喵喵从靠近L的一边拍了拍他的肩膀，小声说“等会儿最后下车，我有件事要问你……”

“到站了！”司机蓝天停住车说。

“小寞醒醒，该下车了。”L推推小寞的肩，令人意想不到的是，她并没有醒，而是朝一旁倒了下去…… 小寞她……怎么了……

emp蹲到了小寞身边，他先探了探小寞的脉搏，又从她身上仔细观察了一遍，最终从后脖颈处取下了一根银针：“她已经死了……很有可能是中毒……” “小寞！不……”河右扑到了小寞的身上，泪水夺眶而出。

吸血鬼则依旧愣在座位上，面无表情。emp心想，刚进隧道之前我一直在睡觉，所以睁眼时可以看清楚周围的环境，而这个人完全没有任何行动，只是一直静静地看着小寞那一边，这么可疑……

喵喵冷静地在一旁观察着L，只见他已经是满头冷汗。她心想，刚刚小寞好像说过那句话，或许那件事是真的吧……

L拍小寞肩膀的手，僵直在半空中，不停地颤抖着。幻……对不起我没有遵守住对你的承诺，小寞居然……就死在了我身边……如果可以的话……如果时间可以倒流的话…… ………… ……

三 轮回

L和一位宛如天使般的女子走在街上，朝车站的方向去。

“hello！”吸血鬼迎面而来，“L！小寞！”

没错……如L所愿……一切重新开始了……

路上，小寞和吸血鬼都一副若无其事的样子在聊天，仿佛什么都没发生一般。而L却心事重重，完全不参与到谈话中，只是机械性地跟着两人走着。 他们看样子，难道是什么都不记得了？小寞在巴士上被毒害的事情……

这是怎么回事……到底发生了什么……为什么回到了早上……

算了……不管了……只要小寞还活着就好……我答应过幻要保护好小寞，一定要做到……

现在一切都回到了起点，但是那个毒死小寞的凶手还在，这就意味着仍有危险……我一定要冷静……如果凶手是有预谋的犯罪，不做些什么的话，小寞肯定还会被杀……要告诉她吗？不行……这样会造成恐慌……冷静……回忆一下当时在车上的情形……

emp一直在车上……喵喵先上了车……然后是我……河右……小寞……吸血鬼……大家都在干些什么……然后路过了隧道……唉？等一下……难道说那个人的东西是……不会吧……凶手……

“L！喂！”小寞用力地拍了L的脑门一下，“你在想些什么呀！怎么一直不说话！咱们都到了！”

L抬起头，只见巴士就在眼前十几米远的地方，喵喵和河右正在车门口等着。喵喵朝着自己挥手，河右则已经朝这边走来。“快上车！”L突然拉起小寞就跑，绕过河右喵喵二人，窜上了车，“你坐里面！”是命令的口吻。

“可是……你不是晕车……”小寞还没说完就被推了进去。

“你怎么了？突然间……”小寞坐下后，才开始对L怪异的行为表示不解。

其他人也都一个个地上了车，草草地打了招呼，河右这次没有和小寞侃侃而谈的机会了。

“我一定要保护好你！不能让你有任何危险！”

“啊……谢……谢谢……”

“是……是因为你是幻的未婚妻……而我欠他的还没还完……”

“哦……你不用解释的……”

这时，谁都没有注意到，有一个人的脸瞬间扭曲起来，变味的杀意，在他的心中逐渐开始沸腾……

一路车开过来，在L的保护下，小寞总算安全地和大家一起到营地了。

帐篷很快就搭好了。

“你有没有带相机来？”喵喵突然问小寞。

又要开始了……河右心里想着，顾自地蹦跳着去海边的大石头上玩了。自从上了大学以后，小寞就迅速培养起了摄影的爱好，并且找到了志同道合的喵喵，两个人也因此建立了牢固的对手关系。之所以称为对手，是因为无论何时何地，两人都要比较一番，看谁拍的照片更加精彩。

“当然！”小寞底气十足地回应着。

“嘿！你在看什么？”emp把手在L的眼前晃了晃。

喵喵瞬着L的视线望去，看到的是海边站在最前面的石头上的河右。

“没什么……”L摇了摇头。

“小寞快来这边玩，快来呀！”河右挥手朝岸上呼唤。

小寞答应着，便过去了。

“你们这次的题目是拍潮汐和日落？”吸血鬼问。

“没错！”喵喵起身拍了一下吸血鬼的脑门，“你这个评委不要总偏向寞大美女啊！也稍微客观一点！”

“啊！！”L才刚刚放松警惕，远处就传来了小寞的叫声。

“怎么了？”L连忙跑过去，把摔倒的小寞扶起。

“没什么……只不过这块石头是松动的，没踩稳而已，也怪我走得太着急了……”小寞站起来，还好只是小腿被礁石蹭破点皮。

河右也上前问：“你没事吧？”她注意到了小寞腿上的伤，露出了心疼的表情，“看样子这里好危险，不如咱们去别处转转吧，周围好像还有别的海边。或许会更适合拍照呢！”她总是充满活力，想起来什么是什么，而同她相比，小寞则显得更加沉稳淑女多了。

“小寞，你还是在营地休息休息吧。”L淡淡地说，“河右，我跟你去。”

“别呀，小寞她……”

“让她休息吧，她那个……你知道吧……而且，我有话跟你说……”

“哦……”

两个小时后，当L与河右回来时，营地只有喵喵一人……

一个小时后，吸血鬼和emp也已经返回了营地……

“为什么怎么也联系不上小寞！她失踪了！？”

四 淹溺

10:20 到达营地。

11:00 吃午饭。

11:30 L和河右去了营地西边的森林里面玩。

12:00 吸血鬼和emp去营地东边拾晚上篝火的柴火。

12:40 小寞离开营地。

13:20 L同河右返回营地。

14:00 吸血鬼和emp返回营地。

14:30 发现联系不上小寞。

14:50 喵喵同河右留在营地，L、吸血鬼和emp，都去了西边的森林找小寞。

17:00 三人又去了东边寻找。

17:40 所有人返回营地，仍旧不见小寞踪影。

L盘坐在地上，头脑里冷静地梳理着一整天的时间轴。天色开始渐渐地淡下来，快六点了。L嘴上不说，但却已心急如焚，并不住地悔恨：“我应该嘱咐小寞，不要随意离开营地的……”

“小寞走的时候到底是怎么说的！”吸血鬼冲喵喵质问道。这时候大家全部都在为小寞的失踪而担心着，根本就没有心情玩了。

“我说过多少遍了！她接了一个电话，然后跟我说她去西边的森林了！而且……”

“而且什么？到底是谁打的电话？”

“而且……她说是去找河右……应该是她打来的吧……”喵喵定睛看着河右。

“我根本没有打过那样的电话！”河右激动地说，“你们可以查看我手机的通话记录！”

“你可以删掉的。”emp接话说。

“你们……不信回去到移动大厅查啊！”河右忿忿不平。

L回忆着中午两个小时与河右在一起的场景，河右一直没有离开过L的视线，他可以肯定，她确实没有用过手机。但是，小寞为什么那么说呢……难道是喵喵，或许是这样吧……

“电话真的不是河右打的，”L为河右辩护道，大家刚准备提出疑问，L给出了一个解释，“或许是小寞说错了吧。”

“小寞说错？你在开玩笑吗？”吸血鬼显然对这个解释很不满意。

“总之我是不会听错的！”喵喵先明确了自己的立场。

“还有，下午我跟这个家伙拾柴火的时候他突然不见了！”吸血鬼的矛头突然又指向了emp，“而且之前他还鬼鬼祟祟地到旁边去接了个电话！”

“你什么意思？”emp冷冷地说。

“没什么意思，陈述事实而已。”

“你们分开了一段时间？”喵喵问道。

“嗯……走散了……而且这里信号不太好，半个小时后我们才又联系上。”

“大概什么时候？”

“一点左右吧……”

“你有接个电话？是谁打来的？讲了些什么？”

“那个是……”emp正含含糊糊地不想说，就被打断了。

“别浪费时间了！如果小寞只是在森林里迷路了怎么办？天马上要黑了！如果再不找到她的话……”河右突然说，“我要去找她！”

“等等！”L叫住了马上就要离开的河右，“你说的对，现在与其互相怀疑，不如先把小寞找到。”

“晚上森林里不安全，女生留在营地。”emp发话说，L点点头，表示同意。

“时间不多了，咱们分头找吧！”L提议说。于是吸血鬼去了东边，L去了西面，emp则背对营地往森林深处寻去。

怎么会发生这样的事…… 只是个意外吗…… 不然的话…… 难道说…… 想对小寞不利的还有第二个人…… 糟了！！

L正一边在森林寻找小寞，一边思考着，电话就打来了。

“L！我找到小寞了！只是……”是吸血鬼打来的……

晚上八点，所有人都赶到了营地东面的海边，小寞身穿泳装，躺在海滩上，没有呼吸了。经过初步诊断，死因是溺水窒息，死亡时间在下午两点到四点之间。

“如果真是这样……那段时间……我们一直在一起……难道她真的是自己去游泳出了意外……这不像她的性格啊……”喵喵自言自语。

“不可能！”L斩钉截铁地说，“小寞今天不可能去游泳的！肯定是他杀……”

“喂！你干什么！”河右还来不得制止，L已经凑上去，把小寞的泳衣全部扒开。

小寞完美的裸体暴露在大家眼前，那是一般女人都羡慕并且一直祈求自己能够拥有的身材，它可以让所有的男人为之折腰。看到这儿，emp不好意思地低了些头，而大家马上就注意到了更加有用的细节，三道并非很明显的勒痕从小寞的胸部和腰部划过……

“果然……”L心想，“小寞……我又没能保护好你……幻……对不起……”

五 往事

一阵嘈杂的手机铃声将L从梦境中拉了回来，现在是早上6点。

“喂……？”L揉揉惺忪的睡眼。

“喂……你怎么还在睡呀！现在该出发了吧？”传来的是幻的声音。

“出……什么……发……？”

“靠！你不会是失忆了吧！今天去野营啊！赶紧给我起床！别忘了，晚上六点来车站接我！”

失忆……难道说……L挂断电话，翻看手机日历，今天是……周六……

时间再次归零，回到了早晨……

刚刚那些……难道是梦吗？不可能……梦不会那么真实！

L用自己的记忆画出了营地的地图，并描出了路线，拍成照片给幻发了过去。“你自己过来吧，我守在小寞身边，保护她的安全。”

“野营而已，又不是护送人质。神经病！”幻是这么回复的。

L心想：“我宁愿相信那些都是真的，相信小寞是有危险的，也不能让她再遇害了……”

宾馆里没有电脑，L只好来到网吧，“如果要用那个方法制造不在场证明的话，网上肯定可以查到……”他把鼠标和键盘换了下位置，迅速操作起来，马上便查到了自己想要的信息，“果然……”

L正准备去接小寞，偶然发现吸血鬼从网吧的门口走过，“对了他家正住在这附近……”此时L的第一反应是——去看看。

吸血鬼忘记了关门就去浴室洗澡了，一直跟在他后面的L偷偷地溜了进来，眼前的一幕可算是让L大吃一惊。

家里面无论是碗筷、衣帽、鞋袜、床椅……全部都是双人份的。甚至在主卧室屹然挂着一幅72寸结婚照，奇怪的是……只有吸血鬼自己一半露在外面，另一半却是磨砂的玻璃，看不清楚……

“难道说这个家伙……结婚了？？没听幻说起过呀……”

又过了一会儿，浴室的水停了，L赶忙出去。他在街上给小寞打电话说道：“喂？小寞吗？你跟大家说一声，咱们打车去营地……”

很快又到了晚上6点，芝麻、孜然、辣椒面都摆在L面前，他正在烧烤给大伙吃。如L所料，果然又没有人记得小寞遇害的事了。这次L学聪明了，一直守在营地，不离小寞半步，也不准她到处乱走，但仍是没有解释原因。

吸血鬼倒是格外地享受这次活动，他一边在海边跟喵喵河右两大美女疯玩，一边冲营地这边喊道：“L，烤肉要多撒点调料啊！那样才好吃！”

“好嘞！”L先拿给了小寞两串，“喏！就两串吧。”然后开始在剩下的烤肉上照吸血鬼的吩咐狂撒起调料来。

“手艺不错嘛，看起来很好吃！”emp在L的对面坐下，一脸赞赏，“你是幻大学的好朋友？”

“没错，”L说，“去年我爸病危时在我还没赶回医院前，都是幻帮忙照料的。”

“我是幻中学时代的好友，他可没帮我做过什么哈，就知道一有事情才会想起来麻烦我！”emp用一点不讨人厌的口吻开玩笑道。

“你是不是有什么话想问呀？”L开门见山，他是个喜欢直来直去的人。

“瞒不住你……”emp难为情地挠挠头，他看小寞已经返回到自己的帐篷，便问，“你知道小寞和幻是怎么认识的吗？”

L的表情突然一僵，他抬起头，看了看emp的眼神，很纯，一点也没有不怀好意的意思：“哦……也没什么不能说的。听幻讲，两年前他和小寞一同经历了一场火灾，幻失去了自己最心爱的女人，DH……小寞她也……也受到了伤害……两个人就这么在自己最需要安慰的时候相识了……慢慢就有了感情……”L的表情渐渐变得落寞……

“那场火灾……你了解多少？”emp的眼睛里放着光，“小寞她受到了什么伤害？DH是怎么死的？”

“我怎么知道？那个时候我还不认识幻，也不认识什么DH！”

“不认识幻，不认识DH？难道你认得小寞？当时你是不是也在现场？有人说看见一个和你很像的人抱着一个晕倒的女人往外面跑……”

L眼光犀利地看着emp，语气强硬的说道：“我不知道，你去问幻吧！”

emp还不想放过L，刚要追问，却被旁边的传来的一个声音抢先了——

“什么事问我啊？”

是幻……他来了。

六 晚宴

“幻！”小寞听到声音笑脸盈盈地钻出帐篷，走了过来，立在了幻的面前。

“唉？”幻打趣地说道，“怎么没像平常一样搂我的脖子呀？”

小寞一听幻这么说，脸红了一片，幻伸出手想把小寞抱在怀里，却被她推开了：“有人……”小寞细声说道。

幻露出了一脸不解的表情，但是并没有在意，他从书包里掏出了一瓶饮料递到小寞面前：“你最喜欢的冰红茶。”

“好凉！”小寞才碰了一下，便又推还给了幻，随即低下头，准备返回帐篷去，“我回去写日记了……”

“日记？”L随口问。

“嗯，从我认识她那天起，就见她每天写，但是从来不给我看……”幻无奈地解释道，“对了，你们刚才在讨论我什么？”

“在研究你小时候的糗事。”emp早就准备好了说辞。

小寞回帐篷后，河右等三人也从海边回到营地了。

“幻你来得真是时候，正好赶上吃烤肉！”河右笑着说，“唉？喵喵，你怎么站得那么远？”

喵喵指了指烤炉说：“我讨厌烟味！非常讨厌！”

“唔唔……唉，幻……唔……咱游泳去吧！唔……好吃……”吸血鬼一面大口吃着肉，一面盛情邀请道。

“不去不去！”幻连连摆手，“还得换衣服，麻烦死了……”

“你怎么还没改掉这怕麻烦的毛病……”emp幽幽地说。

“喂！L你在想些什么！肉都快烤糊啦！”河右张牙舞爪地叫起来，L被这么一吓，油都淋到了衣服上，所有的人都笑开了。 一个晚上快乐的时光总会过去，大家在一起聚餐喝酒，谈天说地，后来两两在一起聊天，累了就都回到各自的帐篷里去……

emp：“最后的结果可能会很残忍，但是……我还是要告诉你调查的结果……那天事故之前，确实有人看见，她也进了那个试衣间……”

幻：“我有心理准备……”

emp：“其实我也不太确定，证据不足，我觉得最好还是问问本人吧，这样你会放心一些……”

幻：“我也是这么想的……如果一切没有个结果的话，又只能重新开始了……要知道，我现在还活着的意义，只有她……”

河右：“天啊……居然有这样的事！？你……你真的还没有跟别人说过？”

吸血鬼：“当然……难道你不相信？小寞跟我说，她和幻住一个帐篷是因为那是她的哥哥，不是那种那什么关系……你别想歪了……”

河右：“嗯……嗯……你也不容易呀……小寞也不容易，大家都只能看到小寞光鲜的一面，但又有谁知道，十岁的时候她父母就离婚了，她一直跟妈妈相依为命。知道吗，小寞是我最好的朋友，虽然有的时候我会很嫉妒她，但果然还是能在一起玩最开心了，他们今天能打车来真是太好了……”

吸血鬼：“哈哈……她也一直把你当成最好的朋友……”

喵喵：“你有过喜欢的人吗？”

L：“当然有过……高中的时候……她曾是我非常非常喜欢的人……但是我们彼此都知道注定是无法在一起的……相恋了两年，她终于提出分手……我当时像发疯了一样，都说不清楚是爱还是恨了……”

喵喵：“两个人只要相爱，为什么会无法在一起呢？没想到你也有这样的情史呀，咱们是高中同学，我居然都不知道！L你还有什么事情压在心里，都说出来吧……这样会好受一些……”

L：“我以前也以为只要相爱就够了……但说出来也没有用……一切都无法挽回了……”

喵喵：“过了这么久，你……还喜欢她？”

L：“是啊，过了这么久，我已爱不起别人，又怎么能说‘不’呢……而她已有了别人，又怎么能说‘是’呢……你先回去吧，我想自己在外面多坐一会儿……”

夜静静的，小寞独自坐在帐篷中等待着幻回来，她多么盼望着能和他度过一个美好的夜晚……却不知这却是她的最后一夜了……

L也终于守住了承诺，他觉得自己终于保护了小寞，把她安然无恙地送到了幻的面前……但是……无论怎样轮回，死神终究没有离开……那些宿命黑压压地，依旧笼罩在营地上空，随时准备着将一切的罪恶与恩怨吞噬……

七 未知

第二天一早，大家发现小寞她穿着睡衣，已经死在了睡袋里，死因是脑部被钝器重击，不协调的是小寞她竟然面带微笑，而且本该在同一个帐篷中的幻却不见了。

喵喵独自检查了小寞的行囊，心想：“果然少了一个东西……”

与此同时，L等人在营地不远的厕所出发现了幻。他整齐地穿着棉袄，倒在了营地附近用来如厕的石头后面，也是被钝器砸中前额。好在只是轻伤，而没有生命危险…… ……………… ………… ……

“不……不……”幻在梦中不断的呻吟着……这一次次死亡的轮回，终究把他吓得满头大汗……不知这场噩梦，何时才能醒……

番外篇 闲聊

“就这么戛然而止了？”楚梦对徐雨表示不满，反过来撒娇说，“我还想听听看最后这场案件大家的反应是什么样的，你接着给我讲嘛，别吝啬啦。”

“真没了！”徐雨说，“作者只写了这么多！怎么样，发表一下看法吧？”

“这算什么……故事都没讲完，让我怎么推理啊……”

“再往后看就是答案了好吗……而且大家反应怎样并不重要啊，线索已经给得够多了，句句都是！”徐雨看上去是想鼓励楚梦的意思。

“不过奇怪了，幻影魔术师的故事里面的幻不是一直跟DH是一对吗？为什么这次幻会是小寞的未婚夫？”楚梦弱弱地问了一句，徐雨笑而不语。

楚梦翘着脚，右手托着下巴，肘部支在腿上，左手则拿着点心吃着。虽是如此这般，看起来却没什么不雅，反而竟有些楚楚动人。尤其是她那犹如瀑布般的头发，顺着滑下的轻柔感，还有大大的眼睛一眨一眨，那种单纯的清澈感，都着实地让徐雨怦然心动好几个来回。

“呐！”徐雨看呆了，木然地递过去一杯冰橙汁，“喝！”话都不会说了。

“喂……”楚梦白了徐雨一眼，“这段时间是我的经期，不能喝唉，你能不能长点心……”

“啊……？经……经期？”徐雨一听，脸倒红了。

“天……”楚梦手拍在自己的脑门上，“怪不得你们身边的异性都围着人家萧紫荆转……你真是一点也不懂女人啊……”

徐雨只是傻笑着，楚梦说得对，他确实很不擅长感情方面。

“你听好啊……”楚梦摆出一副要给徐雨上一课的架势，“女人一个月一次的生理周期一般五天左右，在这段时间，女人的情绪会很不稳定，最需要你们男人照顾了！讲究很多的，像是不能剧烈运动，不能着凉也不能喝凉，不能吃减肥药，不能吃刺激性的东西，尤其是辣的……”

“等等！你说什么？”徐雨突然硬生生地打断了楚梦的谆谆教诲。

“辣的食物……”楚梦被徐雨吓了一愣。

“还有呢？”

“减肥药……”

“哈哈！”徐雨仿佛明白了什么，豁然大笑起来，“如果是男人的话就应该很照顾自己心爱的女人才对的吧！我果然还真是太嫩了！哈哈……不喝这个，我给你冲杯红糖水去好啦！”

“问你个有趣的问题吧？”马路边上，萧紫荆悠闲地走着，带着一副仿佛周围的一切都与他无关的不食人间烟火的气质。

“什么呀？”江南问道，此时她正与自己芳心暗许的紫荆漫步，心里别提多舒畅了，现在的她恨不得对一切话题都产生兴趣，只要是萧紫荆发起的。

“如果一个人得了这样一种色盲症，他会把蓝色看成绿色，把绿色看成蓝色。在他的世界里，水和天空都是绿色的，树和草全是蓝色的，但是他自己却不知道，和别人一样的叫法，把所谓‘蓝色’称为‘绿色’，把所谓‘绿色’称为‘蓝色’。因此，他和别人都不知道自己的与众不同。”萧紫荆设定的这个场景，让江南听得入了迷，“这样的话该怎么让他知道自己和别人并不一样呢？”

“这……好有趣的样子……看到的颜色居然会是不一样的……”

“对的，只有自己可以看到的东西。或许我们就不一样也说不定！”萧紫荆不失时机地开了个玩笑。

“哈哈，那就让我们证明一下吧！”江南说，“分别用颜色来比喻生机和纯洁！这样就能区分他看到的颜色了。”

“绿色代表生机，蓝色代表纯洁？但这又不是我们生下来就知道的，而是后天的经验。”

“也对哦……那么……”江南的眼球转了一圈，“利用补色怎么样？绿色的补色是红色，蓝色的补色是橙色。如果……”

“如果整个大前提，也就是整个环境都是混乱的呢？光的色彩是由波长决定的，要是这个人他观测到的波长本身就有问题，看到的补色也不会正确吧？而且补色的名称也会与正常人看到的名称不同。”

“天哪……那如果每个人眼睛观测到的波长能力都不同的话，那我们每个人眼中的世界色彩岂不是都不一样？”

“也有这个可能啊。”萧紫荆没有立即否定江南的异想天开，“这只是色彩问题，如果是产生幻觉，能看到别人看不见的东西，比如道边的某块石头，某棵树，只有你能看见，你不说是没有人知道的。甚至某个人……在你的世界里都是你的幻觉也说不定。或许现在走在你身边的我就是你因为自己寂寞而幻想出来的也说不定哦！”

“胡说！”江南狠狠地锤了萧紫荆一拳，打得他直喊痛，“你看！这不是真实存在的吗！”

“好野蛮……”萧紫荆揉着痛处，却没有看到右侧驶来的汽车，仍径直往前走着，而江南注意到了，并且停下了脚步。

“喂！”江南朝紫荆大叫一声，“站住！有车！”赶忙上去拉住他，“你不要命啦？”

萧紫荆突然回想起了今天早上徐雨讲得那篇幻影魔术师的谜题，转头对江南说：“你刚刚让我停下？为什么？车来了你会提醒我？”

“废话！有危险能不提醒你吗？咱们是……是什么关系……”江南有点不好意思。

“咱们是好朋友啊！”萧紫荆用力地拍了下江南的肩膀，“这就对了嘛，有危险，对关心的人就会去提醒！走！就为了这个提醒，我请你吃饭！”

“啊……？哦……”

1、小寞的毒杀案？手法？(第二节）

2、小寞的溺死案？手法？(第四节)

3、小寞的硬伤案？手法？（第七节)

4、两年前的火灾究竟有何隐情？(综合)

光棍节割喉案

1号床是张逸，管理学院体育特长生，大三。

死者（2号床）叫做谢峰，材料工程专业，今年大三，患有严重洁癖。

3号床是王亮，电气工程专业，大三。

4号床是李山，电气工程专业，大三，四翼机航模爱好者。

5号床是赵巫，材料工程专业，大三，死者好友。

6号床是卞季，材料工程专业，大三，恐怖漫画作家。

文羽（死者女友），管理学院，大二，攀岩爱好者。

清玉：王亮女友。

秦/秦博士：侦探。

波/小波：秦博士的跟班。

静寂的房间充斥着冬天的寒冷的气息，冷风不顾一切的从窗户的缝里钻进来，直抵房间中的每一个角落。又是一个寂寥的夜晚，习惯了这样一个人，一支瘦笔，一帘幽梦，一首伤歌。随着歌声的节奏，我安然的在素笺上流淌下心中缠绕的思绪和诸多无言的惆怅。这种习惯像上了瘾似得，开始不间断的在我的每个夜晚定时的发作。于是放逐所有的心绪。肆意它飘零，落脚，如此循环，周而复始的运作。指间盘旋的心事在笔尖的流动中绵延起伏，或深或浅，应着这空寂的夜晚。

在这个寒冷的冬季，总有那么一件事让我难以忘怀。那是刚毕业之初，我在帮犯罪学博士秦淮做助手时发生的事情。我们天门市是全国文明城市之一。天门大学，我市重点大学，有着优良的学风、高素质的学生、优秀的教师团队。在评选全国文明城市的时候，我们都在为了这个荣耀努力着，可是这个名号却来之不易。那就是轰动一时的天门大学杀人案给我们带来的困扰。

由于案情复杂，警察专门求助于秦博士来帮忙尽快结案，给死者，给家属，给市民一个交代（我们光棍节都么有休息上啊）。那是发生在11月11日，天门大学校园隔了一条繁华大街的校外C3学生公寓222室。从外墙来看，是一座刚刚翻新了的白色建筑，一尘不染的墙面与其他宿舍楼成了很鲜明的对比。在宿舍楼周围是一环坚实的栏杆，在宿舍门口有监视器探头。就是说，外人是进不去的。在这种种眼神的注视下，我们来到了案发现场。一进门，首先应入眼帘的是凌乱不堪的生日派对上遗留下的装饰。案发前一晚是住在3号床的王亮的生日，看到垂到床边上的装饰就可想而知。

根据法医尸检报告的得知，案发时间在早晨五点到六点。而报案的时间是在早上8点左右，当时所有报案人刚睡醒。作为一个刚刚触碰尸体的我来说，觉得很是可怕。看到被切断一半的脖子，流满整个床位的鲜血，恶心的感觉突然就冲到嗓子边。在这时，博士竟然带了很多瓶水，他知道我是第一次看到这些一定会有所反应的。所以，秦博士不让我太近距离接触尸体，而是让我记录他的叙述。绕着整间宿舍走了一圈，在秦博士的细致观察下发现的有利线索还是很多的。宿舍的结构是南北两侧各有3个上床下桌的床位，床铺离地1.8米，围着床的栏杆高0.2米，除了上下床的缺口外四周都围着栏杆，缺口处焊接着上下栏杆用的梯子。死者四肢被鞋带捆绑，伤口粗糙，血喷到了近乎伤口所能触及的平面的一切东西，差不多形成了一条连贯的血线，死者的枕巾上、头顶的天花板上，北边的栏杆上，南侧的墙面上，甚至是5号床的枕巾和北侧墙面上，还有床位栏杆的南边原本应该被栏杆遮住的小块区域都有血液漫下来，而死者床位南边的栏杆上却没有血迹。由于血液喷溅的动力不足，可以看到血液喷溅的形状是近处多远处少，到了5号床被喷上的血迹并不多，但从南侧墙上，天花板上，到北侧的墙和床铺再到地上，血迹整体来看血迹喷溅的十分自然完整。喷溅的血液中明显的能看到细碎的肉块。死因是失血过多，伤口本身不算很深，但已经割开了气管和动脉。在刚准备离开床位时，死者奇怪的手指指向使秦博士有了疑惑。随着死者手指的方向能看到了墙上一个奇怪的刮痕。那是一个大写的K字。摆放在宿舍角落里的工具箱在这个案发现场更是惹人眼，里面的东西可谓一应俱全。大到扳子 、钳子、剪子，小到创可贴都可以找到。不过，经检测均没有鲁米诺反应。

秦：“这个工具箱不是学校给发的吧，哪里来的？”

李山迎上来回答：“这套工具是两个月前卞季买来的，当时开实习课用的着，他就心痒买了一套。”

秦博士又绕了一圈，问：“谁是报案人？”

波：“是个叫卞季的年轻人。”

秦博士就找来卞季问话：“跟我说说昨天到今天早上报案为止都是什么情况吧。”

卞季：“好，昨天我们为了给王亮过生日收拾了一天，谢峰和赵巫俩人上午去了趟医院，到晚上谢峰说跟女友吵了架所以文羽不来了，宿舍里全部哥们和王亮的女友清玉就喝起酒为王亮庆生。王亮和谢峰闹了点小摩擦，之后清玉走了，我们几个接着喝了一会儿喝高了就陆续睡觉了。第二天早上我起床被浓浓的血腥味和大量的鲜血给吓坏了，我爬起来赶紧叫醒大家，大家看到谢峰都是惊恐的大声喊叫起来，随后我报了警，跟王亮和李山一起保护现场。张逸和赵巫因为脸上都被溅到了些血实在太恶心就结伴去洗脸了，我还记得他俩脸上一滴一滴的血有多恐怖。等他俩回来后两三分钟警察就赶到了。”

当细致的搜查一遍后秦博士教导我说“吃好，喝好，照顾好。现场最重要。但现在在这一点点的现场搜索中是很难发现嫌疑人的。一会，我们还要尸体说说话。”

在尸检结果，以及嫌疑人的相关检测结果没出来之前，我们所能做的就是与每一位嫌疑人进行一对一的沟通，在沟通中找破绽。

秦：“你好，张逸，我是秦淮秦博士。是负责专门调查此案件的。这是我的助理。下面我们进入正题，请问你对死者谢峰有什么评价。也可以说说你们的关系。”

张逸说：“我们不是一个专业却在一个宿舍中，要说到我们的交集，应该都是追求文羽的人吧，只是，他是赢家，我却输了。别的我不想多谈。” 秦：“看起来，你挺壮的。体育特长生啊。什么项目的？”

张逸：“田径项目，铁饼。还行还行……”

王亮说：“这个人可以说是神经病，仗着自己是富家子弟从来不顾及我们的感受。这让我很是看不惯。我女朋友还在等我，如果没有别的事，我就要先走了。对了，李山跟谢峰常有经济纠纷，之前把李山的飞机弄坏了，到现在也没赔。”

李山：“虽说家里很有钱，但是对我们可是很抠门的。还时不时向我借钱，借了也从来不会还。就算我有多么急的事，他也不考虑一下。所以我们从来不会搭理他，也不想理他。不过他有个癖好，就是利用学校的资源把周身所有的的金属件，比如扣子，小刀，徽章，甚至是床头栏杆都拆下来加工上了各种保护涂层。在王亮生日的那一天早晨，还居然把我们都叫起来大扫除，拿走了所有的危险物品。就是刀子一类的。真是个怪人。不过跟赵巫他们倒是很合得来。”

秦：“你住4号床是吧？这架飞机航模不错，是你的？”

李山：“是啊。一点个人爱好。”

在李山4号床床板之下的桌子上放着一架航模飞机和几个遥控器，四翼机，能灵活的在空中飞行，床下显得有点拥挤。

赵巫说：“我和他是同班同学，在这个诺大的校园中也算是他的好朋友了吧。在平时他很照顾我，我也很感谢他，他的死亡让我很触动，真不知道我这大学生活没有了他要怎么办。哎他的英语是很好的，英语听写更是我们班无人能敌的。听说还在考口译的资格证。有时候跟我们开玩笑，说他是从网上学的。他也真是很会自嘲。”

秦：“和高级富二代做朋友不一般啊。你的家庭背景大不相同吧。资料上说，你家里是搞捕捞的渔民。哦，难道也是富二代？”

赵巫：“哪能啊！我家里最多只是小康而已，拿不出手的。最多就是送人家点土产。我还送过峰哥鱼竿呢。惭愧啊。”

墙边立着一只鱼竿。旁边放着礼盒。没有鱼线，看来的确是送礼用的。

卞季说：“我和赵巫我们三个是同班同学。在这个大杂烩的宿舍里，我们也算是互帮互助吧。我不喜欢参与别人的事，也不喜欢别人参与我的事，我只热衷于我的漫画创作。兴趣上也类似，他和赵巫喜欢看死亡笔记一类的。”死者的电脑里的确有大量的相关内容。一个叫“王子”的文件夹里还留着几张貌似是用PS原创的图片。

秦：“如果硬要说的话，你们是什么关系？”

卞季：“是朋友。（好有使命感的回答。）”

秦：“10号的大扫除之后，你确定你们宿舍不会有刀子一类的危险物品了吗？”

卞季：“那一定是必须的，绝对没有刀子之类的大家伙进宿舍。有我在，没人能藏东西！”

卞季的话得到了证实。好像这个宿舍只有他能说句公道的话。

（看样子，死者在宿舍之间的摩擦中处理的不好啊，到处都是矛盾，还真让人伤脑筋。）

“对了，不是说张逸和谢峰共同追过一个女孩子嘛？那个女孩子现在在哪儿？”就在这时，一个穿着睡衣的女生满嘴哭腔的跑了进来，从她口中说着一个接一个的不可能。她的精神可能已经受到了很大的打击。等到过了一会，她的情绪稳定下来，我们尝试着与她交流。

“文羽，你是谢峰的女朋友是吗？你们最近你的关系怎么样？”

“对，我是他女朋友。关系？呵呵，这还算不算冷战？我的气还没消，他就这么没了！！”

“为什么说关系紧张呢，能否从你们谈恋爱开始详细的说一下呢？”

“呜呜呜我们俩的事情要从一年多前说起，一年多以前他对我穷追猛打，当时我也是品学兼优的好学生，本来不打算在大学那么早就谈恋爱的。但是看到他那么用心，我也不免心动了。就这样确定了恋爱关系。”

“对了，在那段期间是不是还有别的人追求过你呢？

“呵呵，你们可真是用心，一年多以前的事情都被你们发现了。是的，还有一个人追过我，是我们学院的体育特长生张逸，不过，我还是后来才知道，他们竟然是一个宿舍的。最后伤害到张逸我还真是过意不去。”

“这样啊，那是不是就说他们俩的关系在当时就破裂了呢？”

“应该是吧，我看到他们俩个吵架，我才知道的。张逸师哥是很沉稳的人，很少跟人争的面红耳赤的。所以我对那件事印象比较深刻。”

“那好，能不能说一下你们冷战的原因呢？”

“这还不都是网络害得。他每次跟我在一起的时候，总是手机不离手，一直跟一个叫李莫云的女人聊天，还不让我看到！有一次，在他出去买饭的时候我无意之中看到了聊天内容，很是露骨。实话实说，我们俩个之间的交谈都没有到那个程度。就因为那个李莫云我们不止吵过一次架了。”

“你能说一下，他对你的态度怎么样么？”

“态度?呵呵，可以说是180度大转弯啊。当我们确定关系之后，说的直白一点，我们连手都没有牵过，更不会有更亲密的接触。这一切，都是那个李莫云害得，每次我见到他，他那个扣扣消息就从来没有断过。现在我明确要求他为我俩的关系正名，到底要我还是要她，到底这日子还过不过，我跟他说‘你要是敢甩我，我发誓一定要把这个贱人找出来碎尸万段’。结果我还没收到答复，他就被害了。”

“好的，谢谢你的如实供诉，如果还有什么疑问，我再在问你的。还有，你们当晚锁门了吗？”

所有人都点了头，表示喝酒之前就锁门了。

就在这审讯刚刚结束，准备松口气的时候，一个好消息传来了。警方于距离宿舍窗户15米的垃圾堆里发现了一把经过擦洗的短刀。刀大约两公斤沉，很钝。而且，其尾部有一环。在环上，我们发现了小片血迹。刀身上虽然看着很干净，但经过发光氨测试，也曾有过血迹。

秦：“这把刀是在外面垃圾堆找到的？”

小波：“是的，就丢在废料堆上面。”

秦：“恩？废料堆？不是垃圾堆？”

波：“是的，宿舍旁边有一个小实习工厂，隔几天就会处理掉一批学生做的废锤子之类，刀在废料堆上并不起眼。”

整个宿舍没有发现能够造成死者伤口的凶器。

经过走访调查，案发当日清晨时分宿舍外没有人听到奇怪声音或看到任何奇怪的事情。可以说那是一个安静祥和的早晨。别的宿舍却有人听到蜜蜂般的鸣叫。还是很安静祥和的。学生公寓门口的监视器探头显示，案发的时候没有人出入。而且，死者的舍友和女友，外加王亮女友都当天没有离开过公寓。

经过法医连夜的工作，尸检结果以及案发现场的线索都呈现出来。5号床被子北边一侧的血迹正是死者的。还有宿舍楼外的军刀上残留的血迹与死者DNA也是符合的。最重要的一点是，案发当天除了死者和王亮的女友以外其他人血液中都含有安眠药的成分。只是死者的酒精含量比其他人都多。另外，死者手指缝中间有一种墙灰成分的物质。

“我来是想问问关于案发当晚给王亮过生日的具体过程。如果有什么细节尽量全部都说出来，这对我们破案很有帮助。”，

张逸：“昨天也没有什么特别的。不过，还真是搞不懂，一群大男人过一个生日还把宿舍装扮的这么花哨。或许是王亮的女朋友要来的缘故吧，谁知道呢。他们合得来的人就凑一块。虽然和谢峰不合，但是毕竟是以宿舍的过生日，面子上还是很和气的。我们就是喝喝酒庆祝一下。我明天还要早起锻炼就没喝太多。不过，最后还是迟到了。”

王亮：“昨天的生日本来很开心，只是我一点都不想提。这你们就别问了。当时的我们都挺高兴的。虽然之间有小摩擦，中间也没谁有特别的举动。只是谢峰拼了命的喝，赵巫倒是很担心。毕竟与谢峰算得上是好朋友的也就他了。他也挺够意思，对谢峰比文羽对谢峰都好。李山还是那么爱答不理的。卞季还算给我面子。没有继续画他恐怖的漫画，把自己搞得跟心理变态似得。也就赵巫谢峰跟他处得来。哦，对了！张逸在中间出去了一会。但是多久忘了，不过时间也挺长的。别的没什么了。这件事就别问我女朋友了，我不想把她掺和进来。她只是来给我过生日，却碰到这种事情。”

李山：“那是我第一次喝酒，原本我也没打算喝的。不过，谢峰在给王亮生日做准备的时候把我的航模飞机机翼弄坏了。竟然都不说声对不起！我当时很是气愤。所以，王亮让我过去喝酒的时候我就答应了。王亮我们都算是很讨厌谢峰的吧。他太霸道了，很让人看不惯。不过，他的死我也感到很可惜。对他的英语能力以及才华感到惋惜而已。”

赵巫：“那天晚上我们都很高兴。虽然，期间王亮因为他的女朋友的事和谢峰吵了架。但在我们的劝导下和好了，毕竟是王亮的生日。有什么之后再说也不迟。那天，峰哥喝的真是太多了，我都阻止不了他。为了不让他喝太多酒，我就多抢了几杯。本来我酒量就好不好，之后就什么都不知道了。没想到醒来竟变成这样。”

“卞季同学，你能不能说明一下当晚谢峰为什么和王亮吵起来？是因为王亮的女朋友？”

卞季：“这我能说什么呢，他们的事情与我无关。我只能说是从客观的角度说一下吧。当晚，我们都喝得很多了。当时可能是王亮女朋友不小心踩到谢峰了吧，谢峰就说了一些不该说的话。听他的意思，好像王亮的女朋友曾经和谢峰有过一段情。他们算是青梅竹马，后来分了。原因我倒是不知道，大概就说那个女的贪财什么的。惹得王亮不高兴了，差一点借着酒劲就打起来了。你要是想问我，我干嘛了。我只能说我喝得不多，但是醉的好快。我是在他们快喝完的时候才加入的，没想到睡得比他们都早。还真是可笑。”

“那好吧，如果你们还想起什么，就立刻给我打电话。”

就这样，秦博士和我陷入了沉思，当晚究竟发生了什么，每个人都有喝酒，为什么唯独谢峰和王亮女友的血液中就没有安眠药的成分。这中间出去的张逸做了什么？王亮和女朋友是怀着什么样的心情度过的那个晚上？“小波，我们现在就去找王亮的女朋友清玉。我们现在还需要弄清楚当晚他们之间发生事情的细节以及这之间发生的特别的事情。毕竟男孩子们不会让一个女孩子喝太多酒。谢峰的女友文羽当时不在现场。不过，去拜访一下，也不为过。走吧。”

“你好，我是小波，这位秦博士的助理。我们来这里是想弄清当晚你们和谢峰是怎么吵起来的。方便吗？”

“额，那进来说吧。屋子比较小，为了工作就租了近一点的便宜一点的的了。”

“没关系，毕竟是自己家啊。我们来也只是谈谈，也可以说是谈谈心。哈哈。”

“呵呵，你们还真是幽默。这样说吧，我和谢峰在幼儿园的时候就是一个班的。不过，当时是我暗恋他。虽然那时候都很小，但是有个喜欢的人还是很正常的。那是个贵族幼儿园。我爸爸妈妈为了让我上好学，拼了命的给我找到了一个位置。就这样，我就和他一个班了。他是我们班的风云人物，喜欢他的人很多，所以我也只是小角落里的人儿罢了。小学初中高中，我们不是一个班级，就是隔壁班。就这样，我们就渐渐认识了。虽然他很是高傲自大，也不知道当时的我为什么就连他的缺点都当成是别人比不上的优点。就这样我们相处了3个月左右吧。有一天，我在宿舍，楼下他的一个朋友就喊我的名字，我就下去了。没想到给了我一个洋娃娃。以为是他让人帮忙送过来的我就去找他。没想到他大发雷霆，骂了我一顿。说我爱慕虚荣，说我劈腿什么的。之后他就没有再理我。最让我伤心的事，在全学校面前他把我丑化的什么都不是。就是因为他是富家子弟！我只是劳苦工人的女儿我就该爱慕虚荣么？我就贪财么？当时的我受不了这个打击就转了学。碰到了王亮，他对我很好。只是我不敢告诉他我耻辱的过往。我知道他的脾气，他会很不爽。只是，生日那天我在晚上8点左右上的客车。9点多吧，到了他们宿舍。没想到谢峰他们竟然是一个宿舍的！当时我很小心，不想有什么事情发生。没想到，我的一个不小心踩了他一脚就抖搂了我所有的过去。当时，他骂我骂的很难听，我都说不出口。亮子知道我曾经有个不好的男朋友，没想到是谢峰。更没想到我们分手的那么荒诞，到最后我们谁都不知道为什么。还能大笑着把这一切讲出来的人，也只有谢峰了吧。其实，都已经现在了我也没有什么怨恨可言了。这件事过后，亮子比之前都还爱我了，还真是我没有想到的。不过，谢峰的死让我们都觉得很突然。那晚，虽然我喝得比较少，但是困得好快。我还和那个叫卞季的人开玩笑呢，人家谢峰喝了那么多还没有睡倒下，我们俩就喝了一点点就完蛋了。不过，那小子没理我。幸亏我看着趋势不对，就提早回去了。”

“还真是复杂啊。很感谢你的配合。顺便问一下，早晨5-8点钟你在哪里？”

“我就在公寓里，管理人可以作证我一直在。”

“哦，好的，谢谢合作，再一次感谢你的配合。”

“这也算是肺腑之言啊，我也从来没跟别人提起过。那我就不送了。”

“恩，再见。”

“还是不见为好。呵呵，慢走。”

经过调查，清玉那时确实在公寓里。

就在我们准备去文羽宿舍的时候，秦博士接到了一个电话：“好，哦。啊，真的吗？你能感觉得到那个人是谁吗？哦，那很是感谢。如果还有什么印象记得及时告诉我。”原来是卞季打来的。说当天夜里在隐约之中他有听到门开了的声音。只是太困了，没有起身。只能模糊的记住一个背影。而且不可能会看得出来是谁。这会说明什么呢?

最后，我们还是来到了文羽的宿舍，位置是423，正好在死者宿舍的斜上方，由于是宿舍屋子小所以其实离死者宿舍的窗户很近。

“请问，文羽在吗？我们想找她了解一下情况。”

“哦，她刚刚出去了。她最近每天这个时间都会出去一趟。要不你们你们下次再来？”

“额，这……那我们能不能向你了解一下文羽最近的情况？”

“这，不好说吧。”

“我们是协助警方办案的，希望你配合。”

“小波，说话不要这么蛮横。”

“算了算了，你们进来吧。”

“谢谢。”

“我是她的舍友，同住2年了。你们是想问什么，她那个刚被杀害的男朋友么？”

“是的，顺便也想了解一下案发当晚文羽都干了一些什么。”

“ 哦，这样啊。每晚我差不多都在宿舍看书。那天晚上……她好像和谢峰吵架了。我记得她说过谢峰宿舍里的人过生日都没有叫她。她就自己发了一会小脾气，之后我俩就各干各的了。中间她出去了一会，可能有1个小时吧。回来就睡着了。别的没干什么。”

“她出去的时候大概是几点？”

“八点左右吧。”

“那她有没有说她那一个小时出去干嘛去了？”

“这到没有，只是感觉更伤心了。最近她老是这样，我也就没去安慰她，也没问为什么。”

“哦……那她跟你说过李莫云吗？”

“李莫云？经常听到小羽抱怨谢峰的时候提到。好像是谢峰的网上的好友，听说聊得很火热。真不知道那个女的是干嘛的。竟然还弄网上勾引人，把人家小情侣都拆成这样。或许啊，那个李莫云跟谢峰的死还有很大关系呢。行了，已经很晚了。明天我有早课，你们明天再来找文羽吧。”

“好的。那我们走了。麻烦你了。再见”

“再见。”

李莫云是谁？这是个很大的问题。需要搞清楚。

次日清早，我们依旧来到了这个校园。清晨的空气格外的吸引人。

“今天，我叫你们来是想了解一下，你们对李莫云这个人，不对，这个网上的人了解多少？”

张逸：“我从来没听说过。”

卞季：“我也是，你们又从哪里弄到的小道消息？”

赵巫：“对啊，难道小峰跟他、她还有关系？”

“你们没见过他跟这个人聊天吗？“

卞季：“我虽然跟谢峰关系不是太坏，但是跟他在一起的时间不是很多。不太了解，在宿舍的时候还真没见他聊过。赵巫，你知道吗？你俩天天在一起，比他和他女朋友在一起的时间都多呢。”

赵巫：“我也没见过。上次，我陪他去医院也没见他提起过。”

张逸：“我跟他不熟，没什么事我先走了。”

“你是说，他去医院？他去医院干嘛去了？”

赵巫：“最近他精神很不好，有时候还时不时想要自杀，都被我拦下来了。所以我决定带他去医院看看。”

“他家里那么有钱，为什么会精神不好？”

赵巫：“这我也不知道。不过，他做完体检和医生简单说完俩句话我们就出来了。那时候，能看得出来他的脸色不再苍白了。精神也好多了。”

卞季：“额，这我也这么觉得。”

请尝试回答：

1、 解释死亡遗言

2、 解释动机

3、 指出凶手

4、 详细说明杀人手法、作案过程和现场形成过程

5、 证据

一开始华国锋和邓小平根本没想过，后来会出现红色家族送质子到西方，还会通婚不同种族，形成与资产阶级和光同尘的情况。

那时候红色高干生活水平还没有美国和欧洲工薪族高，实在忍不住了，要全员派成员下海发财当官倒，只是不好明着摆特权，就假装平民也可以从事发财的事，结果后来勾结越来越深已经被稀释了。这就是唐宋为了打压其他权贵而开科举的重演，没想到最后还是把皇权稀释了。

红魔馆威严共有10斗，琪露诺有9斗，咲夜2斗，蕾米莉亚倒欠1斗

妖梦：你这样吃下去会发胖的

幽幽子：你不懂减肥这一块，我以前吃20个馅饼现在吃10个馅饼，这就是减肥了

幽幽子名言：老铁们，我又瘦了

幽幽子名言：减肥？减个蛋的肥啊？活着吃，死了算

博丽灵梦抽出一根华子：红师傅，让我进一下红魔馆。

红美铃：大小姐说了，做恶魔也要有原则，抽华子容易堕落

博丽灵梦掏出一整包华子。

红美铃：大小姐也说了，最大的原则就是把访客当Zun

嘎巴乔夫想缝合上层和底层。根本是徒劳的。

说实话。这个整垮苏联问题。我一直内心疑惑。因为我觉得苏联还是（发展到80年代）有实力有道德的。苏联是一帮“同志”自己整垮自己的。为什么？和80年代社会氛围相关，如果苏联人知道之后的经济有多拉垮，给他多少利益多少钱都不会同意整垮苏联。苏联的问题在于经济和政治的二元对立。国家有一批精英，就是叶利钦代表的政治精英和一批国有企业经济精英，人民呢？没有活力，其实苏联社会给人民的福利有，但是不高，排队从买面包到买鞋子，他们垮台的时候中国一节破电池都可以卖的出去。老百姓只买得起这个，还有就是中国产的自己人都不买的破防寒服。这是苏联汲取性政治导致的二元分裂，当时富裕的人只手遮天，甚至可以将苏联整个私有化，整个解体，国民他妈和2000年的黑非洲一样的水平，没有日常用品，什么也没有，只有一些常识，但没什么见识。是的，苏联的人民对现状不满，但是精英给他们开的药方其实是毒药。老百姓能懂么？老百姓被骗了。老百姓选的普京么？不是。政治精英选的。俄国人民一直在受苦。就算苏联导台了，老百姓经济自主了，也是捡了个渣渣丢掉了大头。那批精英是真正的受益者。更离谱的是，今天的百姓在缓慢的增长，而精英们选出的带头人，带领大家走向胜利（毁灭）。所以寡头从苏联润出，到英国买足球队玩玩就是（对他来说）最合理的买卖。不知道楼主是不是也润出去了。不做猜测，也不打听隐私。 这就是我的想法。苏联可能会更好，也可能更坏，但是经济的断崖式下跌，是苏联沉疴难愈二元式政治经济，一堆上层和一堆下层，上层背弃下层利益导致的。

今天的政治，还不都是犹太人害的。美国太甜真了，被犹太人整蛊了

中国2000年封建遗存，其巨大的惯性和奇妙的历史，衬托出中国资产阶级的无知无能。中国资本家除了跑路到他们认为的（大同）外部世界之外毫无办法。李，马，一票人等等，都拿钱跑路，中国秦皇帝一族当家，换你你有办法么

全球的经济都完蛋；因为政治的拉垮。为什么？守正出奇。今天没有人守正，都在出奇。什么叫正？里根撒奇尔遵守自由原则叫正，戈尔巴乔夫整垮苏联，也是因为正。今天的政治，叫做无道有术；而产生的结果和前景看，就是一帮疯子带领大量投机犯组团

我看网左被捕没什么不好，起码挺热闹。

两个。土耳其，阿尔巴尼亚

真正的塔学家都是按照cia发的那个劝中国高官投诚的那个视频那样，准备一台安全的设备，用tor连接网络，用一次性邮箱等工具注册匿名帐号，用加密货币购买隐匿服务等一系列方法，保证自己的不可追踪性。

“up主‘聊会电影吧’本人于12月15日左右被警方带走（其帐号12月23日被全面封禁），而其粉丝大规模喝茶最早发生在1月21日左右，如属实，两者相距时间37天，符合常规刑事案件流程“

北约国家有没有对中国免签的？

“大家好，距离上次汇总MHYYYY键政大舞台事件又过去了一年，链接如下：https://www.reddit.com/r/China_irl/comments/1ie87la/mhyyyy被抓和键政大舞台事件半年信息汇总完整版/

日前流传出的一张截图显示，相关司法程序已进入最后阶段。结合各个群组收集并相互验证的信息来看，真实性基本可以确认。其中，“证人”一栏的刘司墨，即互联网博主未明子，合理推断为本次事件的重要发起人。近期又听闻其卷入多起争议事件，可谓《人在做，天在看》

“被告人”一栏显示应有四人。首位杨明昊，即 MHYYYY 的本名，其余三人推断分别为： DDDD，大舞台高度活跃用户，长期参与群内建设与各类事务； 金蛋，大舞台活跃成员，部分言论涉及组织线下活动对抗当局； 皇子，大舞台主要党派的组织者，同时也是另一位 KOL 刘镇锐（@number3475）的直播切片人。 除杨明昊外，其余三人均在被关押 37 天后取保候审，但近期再次失联。结合时间推算，案件开庭日期大概率为 12 月 1 日。至于为何从抓捕（24-7-29）到正式开庭间隔超过一年，目前尚不明确。

截图中第 5 条所列为南京脑科医院司法鉴定所，系江苏省司法系统指定的鉴定单位。综合判断，四人极有可能在判决后于江苏省监狱系统内服刑。

罪名方面，杨明昊被指控为非法利用信息网络罪。起诉书称，其通过翻墙方式授意粉丝在境外社交平台 Discord 建立“键政大舞台”群组，并在网络上公开入群链接；又于 2023 年 12 月和 2024 年 3 月，先后两次在其累计订阅超过 3 万的 YouTube 个人频道发布《键政大舞台秘史》系列视频进行引流和宣传，群组成员发展至约 7000 人。起诉书指控该群组被成员用于大量散布严重损害国家形象、危害国家利益的虚假信息，其余三人则被认定为经杨明昊引流进入该群组，罪名为寻衅滋事。

据群友转述，三人在签署认罪认罚协议时，原本预期仅会被判处拘役或缓刑。但结合自 12 月开庭以来情况判断，三人很可能已被判处实刑。

至于杨明昊本人，此前网络上流传的「恢复自由」，现阶段仍有待商榷。所有关于其法律状态的传言主要来源于马前卒工作室相关人员。B 站一位制作联合国相关内容的博主“小 Q”曾亲口转述称，杨明昊已取保候审并返回河南老家，等待检察院的最终意见。亦有人通过联系其高中同届同学，称在 2025 年春节期间曾见到过杨明昊本人。然而，结合其余三名“从犯”的最终处理结果来看，无论杨明昊在庭审前的处境如何，其目前已再次身陷囹圄。在这里，也只能再次由衷希望所有涉案人员能够尽快脱离苦海。

此外，昨日还听闻另一位在 B 站从事电影解说的博主“聊会电影吧”亦已被采取法律措施，其粉丝群中的观众遭警方传唤。普遍推测原因在于其作品涉及鼓吹文革、否定现行执政路线。古人云：“防民之口，甚于防川；川壅而溃，伤人必多；民亦如之。是故为川者，决之使导；为民者，宣之使言。”三千年已降，未见改变，“悲愤”二字尚不足表达心情。”

解构电影芳华的网左up疑似已经被逮捕

r/China_irl - 解构电影芳华的网左up疑似已经被逮捕 使用左派视角解析电影芳华的up主“聊会电影吧”已经被b站删号，原视频有3000万播放量，给up充电者也被警察约谈，up主本人疑似被捕。

你能不能消停一会。

冰冻知识：联合国各文件对童婚的定性是有害风俗，不敢说是犯罪。

都是一个个对国内装作惊天大事，一到国际上就：娶萝莉有着复杂的历史经纬，尊重他国人民的信仰和文化。

冷知识：人类迄今没有一个国家因为婚姻法被另一国制裁过

经典回顾：

我原以为堕胎权应当属于妇女本人是全世界广泛共识，直到我发现世界上仅有五个国家（中越朝加荷）对堕胎完全无限制。 2022-06-27 21:31 支持 19864

办公桌上的小黄人 这就是我们九年义务教育的重要性了，我在日常生活中，很少遇到那种歧视别人的人 2022-06-27 23:03 支持1786

坏土豆一个坏土豆 哎，这些美国女性也太惨了，那么美国总统怎么看呢？他们才懒得管呢，这是民主党和共和党的斗争而已，是争夺自己票仓的关键战役。 支持6097

中国海外工厂的工人还是中国人吧，要给国内上税的，所以不算岗位和税源流失。

这也侧面说明了中国人是名副其实的第二大硬通货。

按照网络小说的分类，世界观分为高武世界和低武世界，人类世界属于低武世界。

高武世界玩武功，低武世界靠政治，武功再高，也怕菜刀。青年军官的蛮力不如老政客的经验好使。

南非警察局表示，Chen Fujia已由国际刑警组织移交中方代表团。警方称，该男子涉嫌通过未经注册的外汇兑换业务，诈骗中国政府 1.2 亿兰特。2021 年，其同伙在国内落网后，该男子潜逃至南非。

南非国家警察局发言人阿特伦达・马特准将表示：此人一直藏匿于南非，直至其试图申请美国签证时败露。马特称该男子在提交签证申请后被警方逮捕，至今已被羁押六个月。

她还表示，相关引渡令已于2026 年 1 月 20 日获批。该男子目前已登上返回中国的航班，回国后将因所涉罪行接受审判。

现在知乎还能找到当年对美国最高法院推翻罗诉韦德案的评论，都是说中共随便堕胎，一年堕胎千万，祖国不愧是进步左派的大本营，中国共产党是女性性自由的最后堡垒。

幽默老中

汉人可以左脑攻击右脑的赢两次，所以焉能输？：首先是说东大电多外国没电，东大锁死了工业化大门，然后是东大企业海外疯狂建厂说明出海成功要大卖，又赢一次，这时候就忽略嘴里的外国没电和其他被投资的后发国家无法工业化，然后也不谈据说全球经济都不好买不起车了。

冷知识：比亚迪近三年海外新增产能比国内新增多

根据荣鼎咨询（Rhodium Group）2025年8月的报告，中国电动汽车产业链企业的海外制造投资首次超过国内投资，这被称为"历史性转变"

这也是自2014年有记录以来，中国电动汽车产业链企业的海外投资首次超过国内投资

也别我们这一代人，就我父母还买过教导夫妻调情的书籍，我收拾东西的时候都看到过。这有什么吗？其他老中的爹妈是中老年就勃起不能，也已经外阴道萎缩了吗？那很家属节哀了。

这么一想还真是，我父母至今没有任何癌症和长期重病，体检也就是良性小肌瘤切了就没了，也不知道是玩的好才少得病，还是少得病才有心情玩的好。

我真不信2026的老中性生活只搞传教士位，我严重怀疑没有任何情侣没玩过后入和口交。老中现在这种网络舆论一惊一乍的程度，确实还不如2005年的互联网，我记得那前后性学和性生活的田野研究还火过一段时间，南方报业时不时就提。

汉族是没有记忆的劣等生物

https://github.com/ple1n/awesome/blob/master/philosophy.md

感谢我过去4年的经历，我又活了，不知道在AGI迫近的年代这些文字还要什么用，纯当娱乐吧。

"Against" Marxism, the pinnacle of academic obscurantism

There is not a journal dedicated to how you, specifically, you, your personal being, should live your life. There is no formal (academic) school of philosophy that really deals with this topic. Instead, you see all the manosphere, or feminist, or parentally preached content. There is a dire need for everyone that lives, a need that is immediate, a need that begins when he ever starts thinking about his life. Admit it, just admit it. The academia is impenetrable to the commoners, especially the wageslaves (or will-bes), the people who can not afford time. This void, is then filled with various cultists, such as the nationalists, the religious preachers, the parents, the mass media, which serve as an excellent proof that the void exists, that the need is so dire.

Am I against Marxism? This is off-topic.

Marxists tell you to read their books and cite elaborate details. Christians do very much the same, as if they want to show off their rich memory of theology. They continue to talk as if everyone agrees with their entire glossary of definitions, acting surprised when you attempt to question their defintions.

I'd term what I hereby advocate, as practical philosophy, or better, immediate philosophy. What is immediate philosophy is what is immediately understandable, useful, truthful, loyal, to you, your own needs and goals.

What if the commoners should be deceived

I even advocate for a deception of the self, suspension of doubt, or some call it a leap of faith.

Deception is surprisingly common and necessary. The causal argument for that is many things we deem good end up having deception, a necessary premise.

Deception is not all equal. Here I apply a reasoning tactic I often use, the assumption of non-identity, a tactic that belongs to reasoning about ontology. We may use the same word 'deception' (and in the same meaning) in many contexts. Then almost driven by momentum, we try to apply our belief such as 'authenticity is good' sweepingly.

I call this method, philosophy of nuance. I value direct observation, direct theorizing, and coining your own terms.

The worst thing about a leap of faith, is that it's often impossible for the obsessive reasoners. Then ultimately the leap is only possible with some sort of external circumstances, which are all a form of coercion.

Here, I used another tactic, the separation of a theory and its effect/usage/feasibility. I argue that a theory that urges people to do anything, must not be separated from its effect. The blame it receives when it fails to work, is equally applicable to the theory itself.

Addendum: I was writing this section in opposite

I gained awareness about my trait of excessive thinking, almost compulsively, which was in fact not typical among most of population. I also had the repeated recall of authenticity that is a result of my immersion in european tradition of philosophy. I value authenticity as a good attitude on life, but acknowledging the sheer complexity of reality and its effects on morality and everything is also a major part of my philosophy.

Live in a world of higher narrative framework

I see emotions, pains, happiness, as a form of violence. I have tried to conceptualize them again and again. I worked around them. Only their effects can be conceptualized.

All forms of philosophy so far value well-being, which ultimately, inevitably lands in sensory well-being. I don't use happiness, or pleasure, since they would have caused confusion.

The very observation that all philosophies point to the same thing, and not just popular cultures, is in some way horrifying in itself. It would be absurd to not pursue well being, as the end of all means, as the ultimate end that is "self-justified", but per Hume, we can not derive outght from is. The ought to well-being is a form of violence. A violence that is forced upon humans beings of the time.

Human beings are forced to live in the moment, surrounded by the dialogue with others, the monologue, the immediate urges, passions and emotions. Occasionally a person may think of 'nihilism' of some sort, or immerse in a grandiose wholistic worldview from a novel. The violence pulls you back.

The immediate narrative which a person often lives in, is poorly logical, fragmented.

Retro-metacognition, when you discover hidden beliefs

Hedonists live a life, often without the awareness that they believe 'hedonism is to be valued' implicitly. The implication is revealed when we step back from ourselves and observe our own behavior from the outside. What is most convincing is the case when I discover my past but hidden beliefs myself.

I live in the fear of implied beliefs. They could drive major decisions and what is hidden is assumed and most dangerous.

The Scream of Outliers

Tribute to Kafka.

There has always been a strange feeling in countless encounters in my life, the moment I was misunderstood, the moment when I was left alone, estranged. The feeling stayed through my life until I gradually started to put it into words. There is not a single instance of such feeling, or situation that is worth noting down here. Nor is it worth sharing with others, because they are doomed to be not understood, Kafkaesque. I always believed, however, the true answer to human compassion is through reason, not emotions, with the all-encompassing sweeping generalizations.

The concept of pain was a good one, capturing a huge range of negative feelings. Then, here comes the estrangement, or being an outlier, which I use due to its mathematical undertone. The estrangement is perhaps even worse than pain, which is perhaps just dull and bland.

Modern society has harnessed reason as a tool of ruling. Reason, as defined by governments. Reason is defined to be a set of barely changing laws. Reason is defined to be a set of institutions. Reason is upheld and justified. The law applies its "reason" equally tolerating no exceptions or outliers.

The communists have tried. They established a new dictatorship. They executed the rich, tolerating no outliers. The racists tried, setting up concentration camps, shutting down immigration. What is truly wrong with humans. Is the problem, a class struggle, a racial struggle, or, just the struggle of outliers?

Praise the outlier. The one Chinese who goes against his own race with critique hasher than outsiders. The one man who is different from the norm of his gender. And most importantly how he then goes agaisnt the norm of "the queer community" he used to, or you think he would, belong to.

The outliers may become regonized, occasionally, rising to the status of "the minority". They stopped being outliers the moment that happens. Yet, the outliers continue to exist. You become the outlier when you disagree with "the minority". There is never any recognition of the outlier in the current way the society think about things, because the minority is recognized due to their political status, not as an inherent element of thought.

The dialectic is almost shaped by a constant betrayals of communities.

• I betrayed my own race or nation, marked by the sharp criticism which many of the nationals see me as dissident.
• I betrayed various online communities such as those who shared my same criticism of the nation and race, due to differing views.
• I betrayed 'queer communities' or things of this kind that I do not want to name more.

The outliers shall not fear betraying communities. They stand with nothing but the dialectic motion itself, whom I consider a physical embodiment of the dialectics. The problem with many current problems in politics is the problem of minority. The current social-dynamics can not handle a constant movement of thought process, or in other words, the consensus moves too slowly to follow the dialectic. Despite that I find the idea of 'minority' and 'legistlating laws to protect them or such regular legal process' an orthogonal solution to the very problem. People are often educated to recognize the minority, but not the constant existence of different kinds of outliers.

Outliers have no homeland. Nor are outliers affilated with anything. Just as how absurd and crudely rational the modern conception of nation-states and borders are. The mechanism of market is not that different from the institutions of state, regarding to its treatment of outliers.

The masses adapt their morals when the outliers are in power

• The innovators are outliers.
• The rich are outliers. They do not obey the rules.
• The history is shaped by outliers. (not workers)
• The masses always want to shame the outliers because they don't obey a norm, yet the rich oppress them.
• The masses preach property laws yet the outliers rig the markets. They see it as just.

There is always exception to rules which the masses constantly follow and many genuinely believe in the justness that they are forced to follow the rules. Rules however, always come with exceptions, the regulators themselves, and the rich. The masses turn a blind eye to such facts. I have met some communists online and they seem to believe in a revolution by the masses, for which I later found some excellent rebuttals.

Identify the causally important elements towards a causal goal, effect or consequence. The history is always shaped by outliers. If there are mass movements, it's usually initiated by a few people, or sparks of thoughts from a few people. It would be massively fallacious to attribute the change to the masses. Innovators are, by tautology, outliers.

The majority deserve the treatment

Outliers exist? Does that mean we ought to abandon our fruitful constructs of reason over categories, or in other words, the immensely useful generalizations? No, never.

History has made two biggest mistakes, the grave generalization committed by fascists and communists, with their overwhelming mass movements. The other mistake is a total renunciation of generalizations, in favor of a reckless equality.

The majority deserve their treatment. The outliers are their own breed.

Kafka's socialism

• The eros are fragile (against modern hedonism)
• The collective is opppressive and alienating.
• The absurd and unexpected is endless in every corner. (against wholistic design)
• The absurd must be extinguished with human power
• The exact means to such socialism is left to readers.

The socialism of last century was Kafkaesque. The next one shouldnt be.

It's then imperative to think what should this whole theory of Kafkaism land in. The various ideologies of past century have been dealing with class struggle, production, races, various aspirations. Imminent development in the future can drastically change the goals we want to pursue. I'd want to anchor the thought onto something that will probably, persist into foreseeable future for a quite a long time. That the very goal of next socialism should target the problem of Kafkaesque predicatement of individuals itself.

Is socialism just about bread, or the production of material goods, or the triumph of a society maybe of some specific race? All of them will eventually fall into some sort of Kafkaesque dystopia in various corners unseen in the official propaganda. Think this idea as a pointer that points far into future, rather a specific prescription of the blueprint of a future socialism.

Dialectics and classical logic

I've my own way of estimating my worth of thoughts. I value it when a new idea of mine challenges, or contradicts most mainstream thoughts. Such contradiction is based on ample contemplation of existing arguments, thus, a dialectical development.

I had been having a very rich dialectical experience unaware, due to my posession of an internal monologue, which I found to be non existent for many people, later. The intuitive experience is like bumping back and forth across views, and each past view is a dialectical step, or dialectic intermediate. The term doesn't matter. On a tangent, I love expressing my thoughts with new terms each time, to show off that I actually understand them unlike many organic LLMs that live on the internet, and in my city.

This view, a temporal, longitudinal view of progression of ideas, such as your own understanding of some particular thing, casts a shadow on every moment of my thinking, because I know they are dialectic intermediates, incomplete, imperfect.

This may sound like truism. I agreed so too, until I became very explicitly aware of such a process. The depiction of it as a truism, is also drawn as parallel to a thought that was traditional in Chinese culture. Lu Xun called it 中庸的，调和的 which shares great similarity to the laymen interpretation of dialectics. The dialectics taught in Chinese universities is false too.

Every thought is a bit right, and every thought is a bit wrong. Truism, platitude?

There is no useful knowledge that can be drawn from this sentence, without knowing the full theory of dialectics. It may serve some useless skepticism and as a weapon in bad-faith debates, though.

I used the state-machine model a lot. The benefit of drawing compsci concepts is that they are easy to communicate, and usually non ambiguous.

Dialectic logic is like the whole state machine, with the axis of time included, while classical logic, deals with every snapshot, ie, every state.

To understand classical logic, I recommend a tour through the tutorials of Lean4. Don't be scared of theorem provers like I was. They are really just, theorem, provers.

Lean4 captures the entirety of classical logic, with its powerful type system.

1. Classical logic does not care what the terms mean
2. Classical logic is a language
3. Classical logic is closed, hermetic, and does not care about its 'external world'

This is my definition of classical logic, or, if it differs from mainstream definition, this is what I believe it should mean.

When you reason through classical logic, the system is based off a fixed set of axioms, and all conclusions, facts drawn are enclosed within this system. All terms are well-defined to be a fixed place within the system. You can even feed the whole system into a machine to check for correctness of a proof, which does not understand the terms like a human.

1. Terms do not need to have a semantic meaning
2. Terms have fixed, non ambiguous meanings within the system, for this definition of meaning.
3. Temrs do not need to correspond to reality. ie, it does not need to deal the problems implicated in corrspondance theory of truth

The entire modern STEM is based on classical logic.

When you reason through, alone or with an interlocutor, using dialectics, the terms are refined, changed, throughout the discourse. That does not mean we can not have stable definitions of terms. It is rather what we want through such a discourse, to gain a better understanding, attached to symbols.

Definitions are absolutely stable regarding numbers, for example, within the system of calculus. You might argue against saying how much thoughts appear when you think of numbers and new thoughts arise etc, but, well, I am specifically referring the idea of numbers, within its system of calculus. Idea(numbers as a general idea) ∩ Idea(the number's calculus)

The dialectic imperative

There are notable ideas that can be drawn from dialectics.

Such as that I can define reason to be a continual dialectical progression.

A moral duty to dialectically progress one's thought.

Civil covenants based on dialectics instead of simply 'free speech', and fixed contracts of 'private property'.

In light of Kafka's thought, I think dialectics is the perfect response. Each possible Kafkaesque situation is a thought awaiting to be integrated into the dialectic machine. The estrangement is exactly what happens when the rest of society do not try to consider the bizarre situation someone is going through.

The correct worldview should maximally integrate thoughts into the dialectic-state-machine where each of them meaningfully push the whole understanding forward, intuitively, a greater picture. By thoughts I mean all the possible future scenarios, all the possible past scenarios, no matter how bizarre; all possible ideas, no matter how forbidden they are, how much they upset you, how counter intuitive they seem.

Algebraic theory of politics

To algebra, means to abstract out details. That's not all. It's the matter of building a theory based on a foundation of abstractions, which is typically seen in abstract algebra.

To build a good algebraic theory, it needs a good pick of fundamental elements. And to justify such algebraic theories, I refer to the above elaboration about how both classical logic and dialectics coexist and stay true.

An algebraic theory is based on a set of abstract elements, which correspond to axioms in classical logic. That is to say, an algebraic theory is hermetic, closed, and perpetual. An algebraic theory should avoid referencing things in real world without explicit awareness, such that the theory forms a coherent language that does not need to deal with language-reality correspondence.

Intentionality and mechanisms

There are only 2 elements that participate in a political system, the intentionality, and the mechanisms that follow various sources of intentionality due to their subservient nature. This forms the basis of my radically different view on politics.

Market is defined by a vector of wealth over all individuals, where the ranks of power are determined by their relative wealth, which is simplest among all systems, in isolation. In comparison to this view of politics, the various political ideologies are somewhat obfuscating the nature of political dynamics. There is, for example, no inherently evil market because market is subservient to the combination of legal regulation and the investors the customers, both are sources of intentionality, which can be directly derived from this theory. This is therefore the 1st point that can be derived to refute a common view that market is inherently evil or some simply call it capitalistic, or phrased in more vague ways.

This framework can be very useful in analyzing immediate problems that exist today, at least. Consider all the systems that may be designed, it's logically inevitable within each one there are sources of intentionality and a massive amount of mechanisms where people have to follow a certain pattern of behavior. Then, it's only relevant to have better sources of intentionality in these systems.

Do sources of intentionality have anything to do with particular mechanisms such as markets or planning? They don't.

I will call sources of intentionality as intention origins from now on

Consider an existing system with bad intention origins, how do you expect good behaving (such as morally good) intention origins to arise? The corrupt people in power would prevent that, by tautology. It's therefore a prerequisite that a system have benign intention origins, rather than what most current political theoriests try to do, ie, endlessly analyzing mechanisms and consider politics to be a science of mechanisms, ignoring the persistance, and precedence, the causal importance of intention origins.

Abstract algebra of power, politics

Politics and economy

Following the method of abstract algebra, lets define some axiomatic elements of the algebra

• Absolute Money, as a form of power that has no strings attached.
• Will, any kind of intention that is powerless without money.
  • There is conflict, between wills.
• Absolute violence is conceptualized as an extreme form of power where the outcome of event A is forcefully made by some will against other will.
  • The violence can come from nature, state, or regular people.
  • Money is a stateful construct upon this notion, which faciliates the theory.
• Willed Money. Role powers in institutions, legal powers, academic, corporate credentials, status. The acquirement of such money and exercising their power requires conformity to a specific will.
  • Legal money, which is a common form of willed money, close enough to absolute money, but mainly subject to taxation and various fees.
  • Property is what a free will can dispose of, with total sovereignty.
    • Asset is a form of property that generates money, where in its purest form, pure asset. Pure asset generates money without the owner conforming to any other will such as in the way of labouring.
    • Inalienable property, those things that are tied to free will, for all practical purposes, such as looks and intellect, which can not be directly traded yet.
• Gains, defined as a function over a particular will. Absolute money produces equal, net gains for every free will, by tautology. This gives absolute money a special conceptual status of pure utility
• Loss is defined as negative gains.

The willed money, is hence, a 'linear combination' of the former two algebraic constructs.

Under this framework, only the net profit of a corporate, or disposable income of a person can count as 'legal money', as the rest of money is subject to will of clients, not of their own, having strings attached.

The modern system has a vast collection of willed money, each serving a different goal.

Out of all kinds of willed money, legal money, aka currency, is most liquid, easily tradeded due to their structural simplicity. Different kinds of money are interexchanged which is enabled by a matter of configuration of current reality.

Being algebraic abstracts out specific details, which makes it last longer regarding the rapidly shifting landscape, as a good political theory should deal with. The theory should last into future despite rapid development in AI. Most other political theories of current time focus on specifics of morality, methods of social organization, production or rebellion.

The algebraic method in general also tries to capture the whole of reality, as in phenomena, top-down, which is total rationalization in best effort, as in, not missing any part in the theory.

Origin of power

This section is getting bloated. TODO

I was requested to clarify the concept of property. It would be a better way to put it from how power even originated.

In primordial times, around the time agentic consciousness began, we consider of the course of events to follow a trajectory of nature, which is often called arbitrary, random. Diving deeper into the notion it's really just a lack of some intelligent being exerting its control onto reality. The idea and the definition of 'arbitrariness of nature' is really, in this perspective a lack of conscious control by anybody.

The origin of power starts from property. I don't mean property by what it means in the huge interlaced network of political fabrication of the time. Property here means, when a person holds exclusive control over a land, perhaps thousands of years ago. Property does not refer to the land, but the power to maintain an exclusive access, the power to shape the future course of trajectory of events happening on the land. Hence, the notion is tightly bound to the idea of causality itself, conferring generality.

The algebraic part about the theory is that we begin conceptualization from this point of tether, building more complex notions up in the hierarchy gradually, while staying contained in the algebraic framework without introducing more fundamental concepts.

Legal property is a delegated form of property, where the power over property is exercised through a third-party, the state. We don't argue what really counts as the term 'property' either, because the term is just symbol that only has a meaning in a specific context, where the meaning itself is defined by its context for sake of reasoning.

Labour is property, because it effectively reshapes the local reality over matters of material until it becomes some usable product. Using this definition, bureaucratic power itself is also property, trivially, stemming from state power.

The realm a property can cover is often narrow. State has power over beings, but the state itself does not have power over reality. It's a transaction where beings conform to the state in exchange of other matters of value.

The notion of currency is constructed due to the ubiquitous exchange of property. Property represents a stationary form of power exerted by beings over a narrow domain, and currency is a token that beings value.

Humans can not morph their bodies arbitarily yet, even with the total effort of civilzation. Currency is a token within the state, therefore has its power bounded by the upper bound of what the state can do.

What does it mean when a being can get free currency without providing any labour?

Wait, I don't speak words like 'exploitation' or such things at this point. I'm here only to examine the causal network of matter itself.

I call the totality of human control over reality the state, which as as an apparatus, a system, exerts its power through various governments and mechanisms of economy to have beings labour over reality.

Having free currency without having one's own free will obstructed, by tautology, means to have pure power over reality, through the labour of others. It's still not a state of total free will because the state forbids any violation of property typically. Power nowadays are often measured by currencies. That might not accurately reflect the power in question.

I re-read my the previous section. I was reasoning more about those things that serve as tokens that beings value, which diverges from this section. Valuing as a belief and an act. Power fundamentally is grounded in the trajectory of reality. There is no power without agents conforming to the tokens.

I think the property system probably causes a bias in reasoning. Things get measured in matter of currency and people start using currency as a measure of value. I like my causality perspective on property. If you have ability to nudge the outcome of a specific event, you are said to have control, and the substance by which you exert control is called property. The substance can be money, others recognition of you as a relevant person in their connections, and your labour.

Null hypothesis on the nature of conscious identity

There is a stance that I have been having that is analogous to the null hypothesis, but applied in the realm of personal philosophy, as in the philosphy of dealing with one's own outlook on life and personal identity.

The null stance simply states that, nothing other than the consciouness itself is assumed to be part of the self, yourself, or myself. That none of the surroundings, be it my race, the assignment the parents I got, my nation, is assumed, is taken for granted. It's simply absurd to me to assume that the things are a part of myself for no apparent reason, which underpins a vast array of modern ideologies. They assume too much about their identity, yet most elements about their identity is arbitrary, randomly chosen at birth.

I only found out the need to write this down because it turned out this is not an idea that many share with me, as opposed to what I previously assumed.

This section should answer my view on race, nation, and identity in totality

Wisdom and intellect

I take a computer science approach to explain the difference between wisdom, and intellect.

Consider a function Sha256(x)=y, wisdom is the knowledge of x, while intellect, is the ability to reverse the function.

Apparently in this case it's computationally impossible. This is more on the side of immediate knowledge or information, so, extrapolate x to be a some specific way of thinking, specific habits of dealing with things, specific configuration of assumptions (mindset) before any more information is available, a specific worldview.

It's therefore possible for a computationally inferior agent to outwit a more computationally powerful agent through the wisdom, which in the above case, is taken to extreme. Substitute outwit with outcompete in other aspects such as achieving certain noble goals if you need.

Getting substantially more intellect is generally impossible for a human being, but wisdom is not bounded.

In the causal path to truth-seeking, there are the only two elements, information and compute. Saying that also implies there is a substantial element of information, which enables low-compute agents to massively outpace superior agents with the help of good information. Good information can be, knowledge of a better algorithm, which may reduce complexity from O(n^2) to O(logn), while compute is close to average for most human beings by tautology.

This is also, how the right prompt can make LLMs 'much smarter' because we are giving it some 'knowledge' that is on a very high metacognitive level. In an analogy, the AI was running on a O(n) algorithm and the prompt we gave them is some sort of O(logn) method of thought.

Pareto front, multi variate, multi objective optimization

I have to name this method of thought, as in, it as a gadget that I often pick up to frame my ideas, to analyze things, the notion of Pareto front, a recurring theme throughout my recent stream of thought.

Then going meta again, it's sometimes more preferable to write down gadgets of thoughts, rather than try to come up with gigantic, systematic theoretical works.

Many problems of real world are often over-simplified, such as the concern on privacy, the advocate of privacy. Many would want a single piece of software that is specialized in protecting the user's privacy, yet the problem itself is actually a multi-objective optimization over actual usability and privacy. Speaking of usability, I would, as usual, ground it in very immediate phenomena, that the user actually makes friends through a privacy-enhanced device, or software, or platform, that the solution in question is actually increasing the rate of the usability, which is the phenonemal account of usability. This can be said for many other problems that most of them are multi-objective optimization, instead of what they seem to be single-objective which many assume so.

Dialectical freedom, as opposed to constitutional free speech or paradox of tolerance

There is a practical and dire need for a better idea that is drafted to substitute for constitutional free speech or paradox of tolerance, be it a mode of moderation in a small community, or society at large. Not like I really count on this to be implemented, but it's the idea I would propose if there needs to be one, at all.

The "or" in the section title does not imply a parallelism. Speaking of their parallelism, it lies in the fact that they are both being pushed, thus constituting my use of "or".

On a tangent, there are infinitely many ideas being pushed. For each one of the idea, I suggest a dichotomal split, as a starting point of thought, that an idea is not just an idea in public, but the idea de jure and the idea in effect. It would be utterly fallacious to just treat the idea as they are pushed, much as I do not just take what a person says, I observe what he does.

The idea of free speech always falls short when it gets implemented in online communities, because there is an infinitude of nuance that is not captured in a simple code of 'free speech'. The particularities remain non-rationalized and people mostly only focus on that simple code or covenant of free speech.

The matter is to treat politics and social system as a whole, as a conversation, a dialogue, a rational process.

Analogously to free speech, we can forbid what blocks the dialectical progress, and intentionally promote what drives the dialectic forward. In practicse this is very similar to what 'code of free speech' will effect in.

• Spam (valid under free speech, invalid under dialectical freedom as it blocks reasoning)
• Slurs (valid under free speech, invalid under certain code of tolerance, valid under dialectical freedom as long as its not spam)
• Violence (blocks dialectical progress)
• Property (blocks dialectical progress as it blocks the liberty of people who can effect change)

Retrospective chronological view on life

I have tried to rationalize my past which does provided me with useful insights, including, personality development analyzed from the whole trajectory of life.

Here is another thing first. Life can be generally seen as a series of steps of a backtracking solver. This is, a specific observation over a pattern that is visible in my own life. That is to say, and that I believe, it might not apply to other people as directly.

The steps mainly consist of super goals and going into sub goals. When sub goals fail or are postponed I retract to super goals, which, at this very moment, triggers a very existential process of goal revaluation. And I would like you to focus on this motion. This picture as I am positing here, is not useless, which for myself I would try to remind myself of that too to be aware of this general process to not be carried away by sub goals. When it gets retracted all the way back to origin, it's called an existential crisis. Here, this forms a very substantial definition of the elusive idea.

You should gain confidence by recognizing the finitude of your time and reasoning power

Two ways can it go

• I am lay person who has finite time and reasoning effort, so I must follow textbooks and governments
• I am lay person who is rationally bounded, so I should favor my pet theories despite their possible unsoundness, because they are trustworthy.

It is only after I realized my finitude in time that I can not read all books over philosophy that I developed more confidence in my own theories.

And, ontologically, all theories are fundamentally pet theories. There is no valid distinction when the logical framework can be arbitrary.

Let me call it transcendental humility

The most valuable thoughts are those that have never been put into words

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy) relevant

I find it utterly absurd that a huge number of people would read books (most prominently marxist books and christian scriptures), who comprosise a large portion of the modern political debate, and adhere to them strictly, and shun others for not knowing the said books. They barely think themselves.

The most valuable thoughts are those that have never been put into words. The whim you get after some internal expedition, which surprised you so much that you immediately know that you have never felt this before, a brilliant new idea not present in the common vocabulary of the discourse at large or your own vocabulary.

The real philosopher pulls theories out of thin void, utter void. The salesmen digest it and rebrand them for their own gains.

On the dialectic side of justification, language gets gradually refined, aka, modified, adapated as the discourse goes, which is considered progress. Such radical ideas are logically a greater kind of dialectical progress.

Paradox of competence

It's fairly safe to assume that the 'famous philosophers' are mainly characterized by their own thoughts and theories. Their knowledge about other philosophies are an addition mentioned in the support of their own philosophy. There isn't a gross negligence of past literature but the focus is on their own ideas. A lot of people expect you to heavily cite past philosophical dicourse despite not demanding that aloud. The paradox is that, such criterion deems those with more original thoughts, incompetent, which includes those famouse philosophers. Originality is valued by people unless it comes to online discourse it seems.

We can probably also agree that, truth value is independent from reputation, popularity, authority. I claim X to be true with or without citing the source from which I derived the idea, which, often is European enlightenment. The claim should not appear more true or less true to you whether the source is revealed or not.

Guide to newborns

Prospective chronology suitable for reading by newborns.

• You are born in a random country, random family, given a name that you never chose yourself.
• You are compelled to accept this body, the race, the culture that comes associated with it, the legal and social contracts of the country you live in.
• You are forced into a prison-like education system. 0.1% of people did not make it. They killed themselves.
• You are born into an abusive, poor family. 1% of people didn't make it.
• You are met with an accident, 40% people in similar conditions did not make it.
• Your unluck pile together, 70% of people in similar situations did not make it.
• You have entered the Kafka territory, where the pain can not be communicated and all the feelings have to be pocketed, merely due to the sheer absurdity of the situation itself. Your ideas lead to ridicule, or even persecution if you try to express them.

The war against institutions

I hereby declare a war aginst institutions, from which real liberty begins.

On the holography between Dialectics and State Machine

I found a potentially very inspiring similarity between the structures of dialectics and state machine, as in finite state transducer which I am more familiar with. I think the structural similiarity itself is worth noting down.

State machines are a recurring pattern throughout reality, which is the same for dialectics.

To begin, a person's opinion can be modelled as a state machine, where every piece of information may push for the state change, or not. We call the pieces of information, deltas. Each delta may be modelled with classical logic, which conists of axioms and other data. Each delta is therefore on its own, perpetual, self consistent, and independent of external world. Each delta is a closed system of language that does not deal with correspondence with external world such as phenomena.

Some deltas do not push for state change, ie, opinion change. We can regard them as useless information. This is how, meaningful dialectical progress may be defined over.

Reductionism and where it works around

Reductionism is the method of choice in modern rationality. I noticed that we should work around, or that good theories work around the following

• Free will, irreducible, mainly in political theories
• State itself, in computer science related and whatever I mentioned, irreducible.
• End in itself, whenever we talk about means to end, we may reach a point of end in itself
• Ontology, irreducible. Thats why we mostly only care about phenomena.

In retrospect, my algebraic theory of politics follows these rules, as it works around free will, goals of 'the particular system we may want'. They are treated as irreducible atoms in the theoretical framework. And I pursued the productive path of analyzing everything other than the atoms. The theory may be roughly visualized as a graph connecting the irreducible atoms of 'free will' where the ontology of free will does not matter either.

I may call the atoms, ie, irreducible parts when rationalizing in a reductionist framework, singularities in the chapters to come.

They are irreducible for a variety of reasons, maybe because the information is not yet available.

Fear of market optimality

Modern capitalism is as efficient as it can get. Your labour is so clearly priced. Stop overestimating yourself.

It often seems as if the market has reach optimality where you can not change anything but to follow the rules. That every piece of valuable work can be reduced to mere capital, organization and talent that is simply interchangable with money. This is the market perspective, where goods, are in fact the singularities, left out not dealt with. The theory about the mechanisms isn't wrong, but we just noticed the singularities.

That means we can work on them to "beat the market", better internal organization when it's a company or a state, more ideas when it's an individual, etc.

Dialectic maximization as a truth seeking algorithm

I have always been living by a method of dialectical maximization, specifically, I maximize the amount of change in personality through whatever life experience I can get.

It did work. As elaborated earlier there is an assumption that for a particular set of beliefs, you should be able to feed in new arguments, opinions, and data, which through a reconsideration of everything combined should gradually drive towards a more correct view over time, approaching truth ultimately.

This method applied to life, is in practice applied to personality, which is the main causal component that determines the happening of your life, to a overwhelming degree.

In general, I see dialectic maximization as a pratical method of truth seeking that one human being can adopt.

A person is in a naive blank tabula rasa state when born, and fed data through education system which are not very relevant in driving the development of personality overall. This starting point from a perspective of building a truth-seeking algorithm, is particular hard becuase there is very little true data, or beliefs that one can assume that one owns already, while the environment is full of adverse intentional or unintentional lies. How can such a person gradually obtain a set of beliefs that are correct, or ideal? In this case, the best method is through the dialectic maximization. Maximzie the amount of change and the rate of change (2nd order).

The algorithm requires minimal amount of beliefs to be assumed to be true.

Truth seeking of a particular topic, is always inseparable from the truth seeking of a person's life as a whole. In other words, if you really tried your best to find truth in one topic, it will and should eventually change your personality. This is the profound contextuality, as in, how connected the things are.

Personality is the informal term I use for the largest rational context of a person, by which every topic is examined and reasoned.

I also have a particular way of finding things that maximize my prospect of change. Say, an information source that is rich in various news about arxiv papers. The source could maximize the unpredictability of my future course of actions. I try to get more such sources as much as possible. Let me term it, dialectic sources, by which you maxmize your own unpredictability.

Then we can also derive a particular definition of free will, ie. free will as observed. Say we have a particular amount of data, where we can predict the prospect of N agents. We can obtain a matrix where each agent is assigned with a score of predictability. In this context we can consider the agent with maximal unpredictability as having most free will. No I am not talking about the nature, aka ontology of free will. Ontology is not discussed in depths at any moment by me.

Exotic systems that move faster than reason

The term capitalism is perhaps the most confusing and abused term in the discourse. In general, the term is approached from two opposite ends, the capitalism on paper, as desigend, as imagined, and the capitalism as observed, as reasoned from an external observer's perspective. Let me call them capitalism de jure and capitalism de facto, which should be talked about separatedly usually, but as a whole, it forms a very exotic system.

The core of capitalism, is a matrix of wealth and a gradient of incentives it casts. Forget about all ideologies on capitalism. Here I am, proposing a perspective based on pure math. The system can manifest in any forms, with any laws and ideologies, by changing itself. The system can have one law about refund policy and some other laws the other day. This is, apparently what makes it confusing. The wealth matrix consists of rows where each row represents the total wealth of an agent, where each column is one particular form of wealth. The gradient of incentives is created by the fact that each agent wants more of wealth at any given moment.

I am not concerned with particular value judgement that it is good or evil but I admire the exoticness of such a system. This system does not exist by itself. It is created at some point. This is one example of engineering that involves very little effort (as in the amount data and complexity thereof that is needed in the blueprint) but massively profound impact.

The system will persist far into future, reshaping its own definition, but we will recognize it as the same thing that changed itself. How surprising. It will persist until reality hardly resembles what it is right now, such as by erasing the existence of boundaries of consciousness itself, or that ownership can not be created in any form at all.

The system is said to move faster than reason because it has the incentive gradients that are desirable to a particular goal such as optimized production, despite the fact that no-one has laid down the particular plans of incentive gradients in a decree, which inevitably invovles reason, or, I call this a rational process, as in intentional command. The gradients exist before any theorist talks about capitalism, in almost any corner of reality.

Game theoretic wise, capitalism is bad performing because every deal is cursed by a game of chicken, such that perhaps half of useful cooperation is not realized due to the competitiveness itself. I don't consider the competitiveness productive, as it is making everyone worse off. In manifest, many people are using broken products because it is a conflict between the totality of producers of a product and the consumers. They could not reach a deal where everyone is using optimal, non broken products (which is easily attainable by today's productivity). The situation is only sustained to keep consumers to properly fund the industry, which is not absolutely necessary but only product necessitated by a particular configuration of reality, laws, circumstances.

Sometimes an invention is more of a discovery like what people do in cosmoslogy, rather an invention like some craftsman's product. Capitalism is one of the inventions that are actually, more of a discovery that people may work in this particular way. I see AGI in the same way.

Continuation, every system of power as a composition of two

I theorize that every incentived, or forced action in the society, consists of a component of intetionality by one agent, and a component of pure power. Capitalism is a system that works with, almost pure power. Wealth itself, in the purest form, is not conditioned upon any particular terms. Cooperative production is a product of conditioned wealth transfer, where the cooperation is faciliated by a product of power transfer and intetionality that is synthesized by a judicial system.

Wealth is such a weird thing as it exists today in the system. It is a form of power that can not be more pure. You can imagine that it can faciliate any trade that is possible, in the dark markets etc, because it's a form of power that is not pre-conditioned towards any particular goals.

The cooperation in dark markets is also cursed by how free, more precisely, unconditioned wealth is. It's so free that it haunts cooperation. That's why normal markets have a powerful judicial system that exerts intentionality, which is better for human collaboration.

The more pure form of intentional system exists in more rigid hierarchies, such as miltiary systems. Individuals are assigend to do tasks by immediate decrees. Actions are mediated by a two component system where intentionality dominates and 'wealth' barely changes. Or, is it? We notice the ranks as a form of wealth in this system, although less liquid like normal capitalism.

The core system of capitalism mainly deals with the condution of wealth, transfer, and what not. The counter-part is the condution of intentionality. In normal judicial system, conduction of intentionality is exerted through violence and threat of violence. The judicial system also creates a gradient of incentives despite being less pervasive than capitalism because evidently many scenarios are legally uncertain, until the judges announce a decision.

In purest forms, there exist intentional violence and unintentional pure wealth. The former is when one person forces an outcome upon another person. The latter is when one person owning more things while doing nothing to another person. Neither can exist without the existence of the others. In the first case, the one person that can exert violence clearly has more wealth, by definition. In the second case, the status quo itself that can not be disturbed is a form of intentioal violence.

Ranks themselves, are pure power, despite titles and various descriptions being frequently associated with them. It is only in a regulated system of wealth where intentions are frequently exerted the system gradually gets recognized as a system of ranks for a particular set of goals. We consider an agent to be in a list of groups where each group has ranks and frequently associated goals.

The system of money is the largest group where all kinds of intentions are allowed such that the rank itself seems unconditioned and free. In some systems we construct it such that the ranks are only promoted with more specific goals.

Property system as to wealth, reputation system as to intentionality. Can we design such a system that is as powerful as the current property system? Wealth can often be reduced to each other, as in, people considering them equi-valuable. Are intentionalities often reducible to each other? The pervasive reductive nature of wealth makes a currency system possible, which in the simplest case reduces wealth to a scalar.

Cooperation has to happen before consensus can be reached

It's a pipe dream to expect everyone to agree with you before all the work can be started. I would go as far to consider this a fairly common fundamental assumption of many leftist theories. They expect people to form a coalition where everyone is fully aware of their place in the production, what they do and why they deserve the treatment.

It's simply too hard. There is too much difference in levels of intellect and countless other factors.

Capitalism or such systems thrive because they do not demand a full consensus. The production directed through some level of violence. No it does not imply dirty-bloody violence, nor do I believe starvation is necessary in any way to enforce a particular leadership. Just some competent people taking the lead should change the entire dynamics where everyone else has to follow the trend.

In particular, I believe a good leadership must be enforced while using minimal violence. Assuming we want to re-engineer current society as it is, many artificial scarcity in goods can be eliminated because they merely serve as a violence a deterrant a punishment to prevent miscompliance of the leadership which I consider unnecessary anyway.

Such systems move faster than reason. On the other hand, it's a utopian dream where everyone can understand each other and everyone is literally religiously convinced of his fate in dying for a state as some sort of optimal configuration that necessitates his fate in case of defense.

The phrase 'has to' is more of an observation over the imperative that we must drive production including defense before a utopian consensus is reached, due to the adverse nature of current reality. There is the urgency necessitating such cooperation, from the constant arms race of violence and financial power as a result of current configuration of reality at least.

Language, graphs and logic

tbd

Systems design, open problem, iterative maxima

What is a good solution to systems design, or some open problem?

The solution that defies further iterative development, simplification, reduction.

A worse solution gets refactored, simplified, reduced to simpler parts and reconstructed.

A good solution defies such changes because it is already at an iterative maximum.

• Solutions that are needlessly specific, get generalized, which is a reduction to a general solution + specific parameters.
• Solutions that under-estimate the number of variables are outcompeted by alternatives that do consider more variables. Many problems are Pareto optimization problems involving the human factor, UX, such as design of programming languages.

I may call this iterative maximum, or iteratively optimal.

Not all things are in total order

Here I present a useful pieceful of thought that is fairly pervasively used in identifying reality, coming from

Many things are falsely assumed to be in a total order, such as looks, which profoundly shape the worldviews of many people

In a total order, everything is comparable with any other thing, which forms a linear sequence.

The reality of a lot of things are partially ordered. Notorious example being looks, where people either assume that the order does not exist, or that there exists a total order. People might not be aware that they are assuming the order, even, but they do it implicitly through their arguments.

Looks is a partial order where there are a few prevailing standards of looks, where in each lane there exists relative level of preference. I am not proposing any specific holistic partial order of looks, because I do not want useless controsversy. Rather, I am conjecturing that the thought space conforms to such a structure.

Enligtened narcissism

I have developed this very specific kind of narcissism, where I am fully aware of my flaws that are considered flaws under specific assumptions (axiomatic or not). I contrast it with,

• Ignorant narcissism, the kind where people gain pride over their looks, nation-state, or money while not paying attention to the rest of reality. The nationalists can not accept criticisms. All of them can not accept what they do not have, do not own, including a lack of novelty in their personality.
• Repressed narcissism. I expect most people of this kind to gain siginifcant personality change, say if they gain massive wealth, power, or looks. The fact that their personality and views can change at all is a proof that they are not at an iteartive maximum

The awareness about my own flaws only strengthens my narcissism, because it is not longer predicated on a flawless fiction, a delusion of weak foundation.

Reduction by calculus

I suggest an application of calculus in the analysis of values, and philosophy in general.

If an outcome is noble, such as a utopia, the goals are justified as noble, and all the necessary steps leading up to the outcome are justified too. There is a nuance here that gets political very quick. What is necessary? Is the communist dictatorship necessary? Were the communist wars justified? I don't care about the answers since you can derive them, nor do I care enough to state my current views on politics, and the answers are trivial when compared to the thought process.

$$ v_2 = \mathbf{r}(a) + \int_a^b \mathbf{r}'(t),dt $$

The equation represents a path from $v_1 = r(a)$ to destination $v_2$

Each $r'(t)$ represents a instant of free will where you make choices and the integral is a vector, which is also, a point in the 2D space.

Fraction and necessity of causality

The working class of drivers as a whole are causally necessary in the functioning of society, but an individual thereof, is not necessary. The importance, and necessity of the individual, is fractioned over the whole of causal node that is as a whole necessary to a noble goal. An ordinary worker is often seen as trivial because the fraction might be $1/100000$. I'm not positing that he is trivial or not. Rather, the word trivial is too simple to capture the totality of the meaning here. Or from another angle you can refine the triviality of such a worker through the understanding of this section.

An outcome that is valued treated as noble, usually has many many causal nodes that may lead up to it. The fractionation and elusive necessity is central to much of the existential contemplation.

Reduction by calculus tracks causality from a perspective of a single temporal trajectory. This section, examines a single step in causality.

Prophetic logic and causality

TBD

Contingent morality and the worhip of status quo

It is praised when a richman donates money to a poor person to alleviate his pain, but, we are assuming way too much things here.

The praise is predicated on the fact that some people are impoverished, as a part of the greater whole of the status quo, which for brevity I refer to as the real.

This is a particular definition of the real, as opposed the possible. Not the Kantian real or whatever other definitions, but the real as in the status quo.

The real includes the fact that some people look pretty and some people look ugly, some people are rich, and that current processors typically have a maximal frequency of 5GHz.

A lot of values of current humans, boil down to to the worship of the real. People do not care about the possible.

Again, I rarely condemn people or praise anything. It's observation and facts that matter. That's all.

Measurement of meaningful undestanding through dialectic delta

I have a personal way of measuring whether I understand this piece of philosophical text, simply by the rate of change to my own views.

If it's generic agreeable arguments, the change is minimal. I might be getting the correct interpretation, but it doesn't matter since I already have it in my own system.

If it changes my own view in any way. It might not be the right understanding, but it's good anyway because dialectic change is good in any case.

Following this methodology, on the 2nd order, I try to gain more sources that give me such change.

Morality constructed on vector of intention and effect

Usual theories of morality each treats the system as a system constructed on intention, or effect. The de facto morality of human rights is of deontology, which is based on intention as in it says what people should do in what circumstances, and a morality based on deontology of the justice of contracts, especially private property. Another popular morality is utilitarianism, socialism, which emphasize systems constructed based on reasoning about effects, and anti-natalism which is popular on internet.

The precise definition of intention and effects can be seen from section Reduction by calculus.

These systems, share a common feature that they revolve around a fundamental element of either intention, or effect.

What if nature of reality is more nuanced? Thats why advocate for a system of morality, on the fundamental level, based on a 2D vector of (intention,effect), where intention and effect are not typical algebraic objects like real numbers. They represent immediate tendency of actions on the forementioned causal trajectory and consequences (effects, possible world) on the causal graph.

It is often absurd to live a life when you have to reach noble goals through oftentimes, bad or evil means. The classical problem is how a utopia necessitates great wars, which is a common topic people litigate over in online discourse.

A person might not have the traits you appreciate, but those very same traits give him a function, make him function as a person that achieve certain effects that you appreciate. This also implies a view of a split of a person as dual of his function in the world and his authentic self, haunting and pervasive.

Having these concerns in mind, you get frustrated and start thinking how absurd all of the reality is, and slack off. Still, I hold the position that absurdity is not real but a hint that might drive you into greater rationalization of the world, and eventually reach an impression of eureka in polar opposite to the impression of the absurd.

Compounding causality, a historical analysis

Here I present a view on development of history that is related to previous elaboration on, wisdom vs intellect.

Intellect is a computation power which derives answers given a computation process, while wisdom, is the answers themselves.

I have developed this exotic view on history that history is unfolded on a compounding causality.

From $t_1$ to $t_2$, the change that may happen is bounded by the computational power and the data that may be used available. The data part is the so-called wisdom as they can enable faster computation shortcuts. The computation may be done by anybody. We see it as a collective process.

The possible change is bounded by the computation; hence the wisdom. It's such weird that the possible change is continually increasing over time. Let's call it action space.

Trivially, wisdom never decreases, because more data is always better, which increases the action space perpetually.

I'm not concerned over production, or specific changes in organizational structures of society, because my theory does not care for these temporary and utterly specific things that change in a short time frame. The action space has been in constant and increasing rates of higher-order increase since the discovery of fire, the use of language and paper, the invention of general computers.

The ever increasing computable space

It's also worth noting that some answers are not possible without particular data. That is to say for a particular process of computation in the time frame $t_1 \to t_2$, some answers are fundamentally non-computable without particular inputs of data. More things are becoming computable over time.

What makes this possible? Brute-force! The computability theory says some answers can not be arrived by a particular algorithm with available data, but it never said we can't just do a correct guess. It's always a guess, by tautology. Let me prove it.

If an answer is unreachable before $t_2$ through all computation methods and data we had before $t_2$, but we gained access to the answer after $t_2$. The only possibility is that we guessed it. Otherwise, it was either non-computable or we did not do the compute. Nothing prevents a heuristic algorithm to just spew out non-computable answwers because computability theory only applies to what it is defined over.

There is a true joke that, you can simply guess the correct preimage at the first time for a SHA256 hash with good enough luck, or any answer to some Turing-non-computable problem.

Multiple perspectives can be true, simultaneously

It's often viewed competitively that if you believe in one theory, you must reject another. Just a very powerful bias I noticed in myself recently. The great theories from academia can be true, and your own theories can be true too. There is no need to fear when others talk about the great theories.

Solving the old 'reputation system problem' from a metalogic perspective

Reputation systems are increasingly prevalent in modern systems

• Ranks of a nation-state
• Capital, where the amount of capital in particular, currency, decides one's agency, the amount of power one has to direct production through legal means.
• IP quality, as implied in the internals of Cloudflare and various IP blacklists
• Risk control in online social media platforms
• CA systems starting from CA root, a centralized PKI.
• GPG public key infrastructure, as an example on establishing a PKI decentrally, which I do not consider, ideal.

The 'reputation' isn't reputation per se, which in usual sense means fame or recognition by an audience.

There are potentially many ways to formalize this, which I came to belief is the core complexity of the said problem. Method wise, it's always ok to throw a random neural network to do the predictions. However, I want to do an analysis from the philosophical view point, to avoid the explainability problem and perhaps offer more profound insight towards the iterative maxima.

• Define 'reputation' as compliance towards a specific goal, such as not creating spam, successful trades.
  • If we try to create a system upon this goal, it's destined to be a narrow system, by tautology.
• etc. not listing more

Trust, and a prevalent phenomenon of isolation of invidiuals in the modern world

This should derive some extra ideas that is adjacent to the above ideas on reputation systems.

Most transactions of modern world tend to be clearly priced, mass saled, platformed products or labor, or transactions faciliated through institutions or legal formal processes. That's a fact. It's simply rare that two people get together and cooperate without a contract. And it's rare even though people can sign contracts.

Trust is a highly profitable element. Examples that profit off trust include

• Gangs that involve drug sales or other illegal activities
• Corruption that can not work without secrecy
• Employment. If an employer can trust another person to hold the capability of work without a degree, the total cost on both people get reduced drastically. The employer can pay less and the employee gets to not go to a university which, depending on the person, is a massive saving in time, and pain.
• Business deals.

Here the metalogic should abstract as much things as possible, such as specific algorithms of evaluating trust.

In a simple model, let's say the goal is to risk control over spamming of users on a platform. It's irrelevant what algorithms are used here, because I will take an approach from the side of observer. For such a system, it is inevitably a decision making system. And such a system inevitably is a system that processes useful, reliable information into actionable results.

We can already derive a theorem from the information part.

Theorem, trust system is information-bounded

Without information, it's impossible to make better decisions that are better than random draws.

This is applicable to any form of trust system.

Theorem, trust system is truthiness-bounded

Consider we have hardware sensors that are protected by police that identify if a user is a real person, which sends a signed message over the wire when an identification is made. We may also have other sources of information for such purpose. The system may adopt both sources and cross-analyze, but the total amount of truthiness is considered to be constant. (This is more like a definition rather than an assertion)

The truthiness of that signed message, is a result of deliberate construction of such a physical system, as a particular configuration of matter of reality, such that it performs our intended goal of identifying a living human.

Inevitably, a trust system will get political because it will create a gradient of incentives. Agents in the system will try to exploit for gains. The truthiness of input may gradually degrade as that happens.

From the chronological perspective, if the truthiness resists exploitation, we consider this trust system to be robust.

Truthiness is formally defined as the degree that data points match the matter in reality. The political side that it causes people to be controlled, to act controlled, is merely a side effect.

It's also common that trust systems utilize rewards and punishment in society to optimize truthiness, but we should be clear about the notions here.

I divide reality into two compartments of realms.

1. Realm of information, where data exist on its own
2. Realm of physicality, the rest of reality.

The realm of information is the data that a trust system, which is a computational process, can access. More specifically, a trust system is formally defined as a function $f: T_1 \to T_2$ that is computable within certain bounds, where $T_{1,2}$ are tensors for input data and output verdicts.

Data is useless without a mapping onto physical reality, especially in this context. The degree the said data tethers onto reality is considered its degree of truthiness.

Usually the two realms are connected by sensors, human attestations, and in more complex setups, institutions, political structures where humans work in pre-designed ways producing predictable results.

What we can do?

The matter in this section does not really concern about getting more information, or more truthiness, because they are outside of the scope, while I believe they are the actual, urgent goals for better trust systems.

If we limit our scope to a particular, isolated trust system, we can see it being deficient in information and truthiness. It could have integrated more information and truthiness into the decision-making process.

A trust system is also inevitably computational, resembling human reason. Currrent state is that most trust systems are very dumb algorithms.

• Increase the "intellect" of trust systems
• Integrate more data sources by connecting other trust systems
  • Consider a trust system here to be, an individual program operated by a web site.
  • Current systems are poorly interoped.
• Integrate more truthiness sources

Systmatic analysis over values

Particular personal goals often change. It is therefore necessitated to survery the whole of possible values or goals one can have.

In this section we are not concerned with particular values that are justified by values in a larger context, where the particular values serve as means to the greater values, such as my effort in nsproxy for enabling freedom, which is a means-to-end relationship.

Values in general, exist as a chain of justification, as observed in population. Why work? It benefits society, the nation, gets money which gets an person's his pleasures. The justification ends here because pleasure is a singularity as defined above. It's a blackbox to rational reduction, almost impenetrable to reason.

My survey over theories I have come across shows that most values often land the values in changes in reality. They value change. Since the disenchantment humans have gradually shifted all their values into change, and hedonism. Change represents the real in the future, and hedonism represents the real, as in status quo. In brief, change, and reality. A huge number of ideologies land the ultimate value of everything in creating a utopia, where no further justification is needed or given and everything else valuable points towards the utopia.

Some people see the termination of the chain of justification as a proof of nihilism. It's plausible. Yet all theories of today are axiomatic in nature in the sense that they need assumptions.

I see nihilism as an invalid philosophical position. It's a mere stimuli, as illusionary as the impression of the divine. That's my insight as a person with experience with frequent mood swings and as a psychonaunt.

Dictatorship is bad?

An ontological investigation into the concept of dictatorship

What do you mean by dictatorship? There are 7 billion people on the planet. Even if we consider the 7 billion only, there are 7 billion kinds of dictatorship. That means you are referring to 7 billion "dictatorships" where each one is different, each one serving as a possible and plausible definition of your dictatorship.

You are making a categorical mistake to dismiss the whole idea of dictatorship when you perceive a subset of possible dictatorships as bad. The old soviet-style states are dictatorships, and, democracy, private property are also dictatorships.

Formally, I define dictatorship as an exclusive control over the future outcome of events, over a geographic region or any other abstract region such as internet spaces.

What does this imply? It means reality will always be inhabited by some form of dictatorship, such as apathy, randomness, arbitrariness. It is only when the control is enchanted with a free will from a free being, people call it a dictatorship. That is to say, dictatorship is fundamentally unavoidable because we live in a world where the course of events follows a single trajectory. The coin either lands heads or tails. When the 'thing' that decides it is randomness, we usually don't call it a dictatorship. I call this dictatorship of randomness.

Ideas transcend terms. Did you notice that your definition get enriched and changed through the reading of the text. That's what I call dialectics.

The necessary consequence followed by the above reasoning, is to stop trying to eliminate dictatorship, figures of power of any kind. The current politics is insecure about such fact that they are inventing complex mechanisms, various councils, ineffective democracies, which end up empowering dictatorships elsewhere. They are so avoidant about apparent forms of dictatorship, while their fixes are elaborate processses that eventually result in a single resolution of deeds, or non-action where non-intervention itself is a dictatorship which can result in suffering in cases where the cruelty of nature causes that.

Do I support dictatorship?

I do not support dictatorship as in the common definitions circulating on internet and offline. It's more accurately called authoritarianism, despite that they are frequently conflated.

Speaking of my definition dictatorship, there is not 'support it' or not, because it's simply a feature of reality that can not be removed.

Psychonauntics and philosophy

It's impossible to be a philosopher without being a psychonaunt first.

There isn't a need to be philosopher for everyone. It's quite mentally draining actually, sometimes harmful, and deception may be good anyway. But under the assumption that you want to be a philosopher, it's imperative that you be a psychonaunt.

I've found that the immdiate perceptions, impressions, and impulses are some of the most powerful biases in the way of human reason. High sex drive blocks personality development.

There isn't a way to get rid of these impressions, but mood changes can shuffle them.

If a simple flip in mood changes your views, it means your reasoning is dialectically incomplete anyway. We consider the integration of more information is always correct a fundamental assumption, just as elaborated earlier in the dialectics section.

Introspection has its bounds. Substances can help. Sometimes you enter this realm because you have to, you get prescribed anti-depressants.

Disregard international standards. They don't matter. They are wrong. I compiled a list based on personal experience over the phenomena that are observable to me.

Nobody needs these theories when you can access the phenomena unless the state blocks the access.

I have substantial disagreement with DSM theories and taxomoy of mental disorders. They are utterly wrong.

• Hypomania
  • Confidence, ego inflation, grandiosity
  • Motivation
  • Disinhibition
  • Increased desires, appetite and enjoyment thereof
  • I do not regard this as a mood disorder. Rather, I consider it the optimal state of being.
  • David Pearce, too, advocates the state of hypomania.
• Depression. Taxonomy wise I consider there to be 3 sub-types of depression.
  • Anhedonia, lack of motivation, feeling of meaninglessness, feeling of nihilism.
    • sometimes manifesting in anorexia, but anorexia doesn't constitute anhedonic depression
    • lack of enjoyment, fulfillment, reward from activities such as eating
    • treatment, stimulants, or any drug with stimulating property.
  • Dysphoria, general unease, unexplained discomfort
    • everyone can experience this with a sufficient dose of antipsychotics, which was used as a torture method.
    • note that Haloperidol is associated with neurotoxic metabolites
  • Melancholy, sadness
    • I consider it a type of mood problem when I have sadness without any reason. It's simply logically absurd that I should be sad without any reason any change in circumstances, isn't it.
    • treatment, serotonergic agents, such as Zolmitriptan.
  • I generally consider stimulants a better treatment than SSRIs, because SSRIs cause long-term profound changes in neuronal weights and brain structure, sometimes causing a huge personality shift for better or worse.
• Anxiety
  • Rumination
    • Repeated worries usually with internal dialogue
    • Many people resort to Ethanol, which is a very terrible drug that has catastrophic metabolic consequences. Literally Butanol or other longer-chained alcohols are better if you like solvents that much.
    • treatment, Pregabalin
      • Pregabalin empties the mind
      • the drug is markedly safer than Ethanol for long-term consumption, for its lack of liver metabolism, activation of irrelevant receptors or inhibition of metabolic enzymes etc, although I do not endorse long-term consumption of psychotropics due to the risks.
      • Benzodiazepines are not very effective
  • Agitation
    • Inability to focus
    • No apparent reason or problems to ruminate or worry over
    • Cardiovascular effects that can be felt
    • treatment
      • beta blockers especially Propanolol
      • $\alpha_{2a}$ agonists such as Guanfacine
        • they are fairly potent orthostatic hypotension agents, while beta blockers don't have a fraction of the effect, to my surprise.
        • I don't endorse Guanfacine as optimal. It's just what I have tried so far.
      • Atomoxetine
        • It's fairly absurd that ADHD agents are put in this bucket, but I reasonably believe they act on the same neuronal pathway.
      • Benzodiazepines
        • Alprazolam is noted for its potent and rapid anti-depressant effects. They derived Adinazolam following the inspiration.
  • Social anxiety, shyness as a personality
    • SSRIs for months
      • I personally believe SSRIs permanently decreased my sex drive too
    • This is a special one because it's a matter of neural structure and weights

Language politics

Democracy, sales, and politics at its surface, are increasingly dominated by the mechanism of memetics. The discourse and reasoning of people are frequently affected by the biases inherent to language in the typical way people use it. Perhaps language is the largest institution overall.

I have hence been proposing a retreat from language. It's especially important for people who are new to reason and politics.

Various conflicts of modern day are pretty much a result of the institution of language, the conflicts over races, genders, nation-states. I see them as drama that only take place on social media and pamphlet of embassies that serve as nothing other than performative art.

Systems that base on the institution of language, are somewhat bad I'd say. Examples being bureaucracy which needs laws regulations various processes intensely based on language, and democracy which needs endless litigations. Language tends to lag behind truly transformative ideas, especially if you want the a large audience to fully digest it.

I find it funny that people constantly argue, fight and die genuinely for these terms, labels of languages, including the symbols, flags, the fixed notions that they represent. Yet if we do not use language to protect some minories, assign labels to them and codify the protection into law, people will probably start bullying them as some sort of usual process, as if it is a part of human nature.

Races, nations are in particular a funny element in the theatre of modern politics. Such notions are elusive because they are partially real, yet fail and will never capture the whole of reality. Just as how I treat the self as a bundle of impressions, knowledge and various processes (I do not acknowledge the existence of the self), races are too a construct that captures the phenotype and behavior of majority. The label draws that much attention because the real part has real political, economical consequences. Most people are not aware that the real part and the fiction part are bundled into one label.

It took humanity so much time to invent new 'symbols' that play a role in the threatre of history. Notably, proletariat from the leftists. Yet most of them acted like swarm and fell for the same trap of language.

I intentionally coined the term outliers, in the hope that it serves as a living, anthropomorphic drive and instance on the way dialectics drives the world forward.

History as a result of free will

Countless people believe in the these right-wing or left-wing theories about the grand theory on the development of history. The iron laws of capital exploitation, recurring patterns in development of civilization. Great historians have figured out all of it, a long time ago, isn't it. Just as what happened in the past, the future must be alike, and you should study more history!

Fundamentally, I believe history is driven by free will and randomness, deliberate choices made by key people, those who are in power, those who had the chance to get their voices heard, those who have the wealth and transformative ideas. The modern day world is to a large degree a consequence of a ton of deliberate choices of key people during WW2 and a ton of coincidences on the key trajectory of events.

There are certainly recurring patterns in society. Companies exploiting people in predictable ways, making profit off capital in predictable ways, countries going to war at each other in predictable patterns. They, however, do not matter, because we focus on change. What's the point on focusing on these repeated patterns? You are looking for disappointment, or confirmation if you like it. Those who look into the repeated patterns are just going into the confirmation bias to make their theories seem useful. Their theories have zero predictive power for all the changes that happened.

Change is fundamentally driven by outliers. Patterns persist until they are changed. I base my predictive power on a clear tether on the theorization on causality. A rich man has more causal relevance than a minimal wage worker, typically. That's the difference in causal relevance that we must acknowledge. To a given outcome, there are causal factors that dominate, and the factors that are trivial. That's the Pareto stance.

History is a matter of creation. There is not a determined future. There is no guarantee in any good or bad ending.

I expect a future much more bizarre, unanticipated for the years to come, perhaps in a good way.

It's sound to refute a point by providing a seemingly irrelevant argument

Sound as in logically valid.

I found this to be a fairly interesting phenomenon in debates and reasoning in general.

In some cases it's indeed going off-topic, but in other cases, this can serve a true rebuttal.

You can say the capitalism as its current state, is causing poverty and crime and go about your whole ideology and propose a lot of solutions. I won't disagree with you on that, but without my addendum, your point is invalid. Notice I am not, in anyway directly refuting your point.

Politics of the time is locking up people with limited food (supply of currency) in a cage (private property and state power where many things you need are not even for sale such as custom medicine). Some people go about justifying people doing crime and killing each other as a result of circumstances, and aspirations of weath equality of various kinds.

I propose the aspiration that some people take the lead and break the cage instead. It's not like the person talking to me didn't want to break the cage. It's rather him not focusing on how the cage is broken, which makes his reasoning partial. The arguments seem to not relate to each other directly, but they are addressing the same thing of reality.

Providing addendum is a sound way to refutation as long as it changes the thought of a person to any dialectic delta.

Refactoring of philosophy, a tradition brought from computer science

I have found it better to refactor philosophy and recompile the source code myself. It's common in fields of engineering to rebuild things but most people are hesitant to rebuild their worldview, methods of reason.

Discrete mathematics as the only relevant ontology

• Causality, language $\to$ Graphs
• Concepts, identities, impressions, objects $\to$ Tensors
• Emergence $\to$ Integral

I've so far used discrete mathematics extensively to build my system of ontology. I see debates over overly speculative nature of things as futile and will not produce meaningful gains. Plus, there are many many ways to examine the same object of reality. There is not a need to obsess with any specific way of philosophy such as going into those speculative dead ends.

Non-predictable factors and predictable factors

In the continual flow of reality as it develops, would you not consider some people to be fairly passive and predictable where other people act like blackboxes, acting as a source of change that drive such predictable sequences. There isn't a bound on the perspectives you can create. It simply makes more sense to create a perspective where some people are considered the causes of change.

Some people always argue that anyone can be regarded a source of change. This is not wrong in the way that you can create a perspective where they are treated as source of change and begin an analysis, but such perspectives are inherently less efficient and lack explanatory power in comparison to, said better perspectives.

Cooperation between enemies

I found this as a trait of capitalism. Two nations would have gone to war without an international system of capitalism where the money is what I considered unwilled money, the purest form of wealth that does not have any strings attached. It's imaginable in such a situation the conflict can be settled by financial means.

Such a system can even enable cooperation between enemies, between mutually disagreeing parties on morality, while in the end, forming a supply chain which may serve some noble goals that we value. This does not happen in a usual leftist rationally-designed system where the system expects people to hold a common worldview.

Empirical study of capitalism

• Short-lasting contracts, settlement. Lack of viable long-term cooperation and accountability.
  • Price of justice might be a rate-limiting factor
• Delegation (sometimes into authority) as a form of cost saving which could be detrimental
• Too much conflict during price negotation, the game of chicken.
  • A lot of deals are not made because the game is fierce, which result in losses of both sides. Either potential profits are not made, or the manufacturer end up re-implementing some existing technologies.
  • Socialism should address this conflict.
• Dimensionality reduction into prices is inherently suboptimal, if the system is to be seen as product of intentional design.
  • The system can be seen as an optimization process towards an optimal price, yet deals in reality require much, more than just price information. Authorities, certifications, various systems got invented over time to undo the "dimensionality reduction"
• Rational descent as a viable strategy of revolution in the era of capitalism
  • It is a rational descent when both producers and consumers optimize towards their goal of cost-saving and gain-maxing.
  • It is a rational descent when all people start adopting a more free currency, such as cryptocurrency, globally but not coordinated.
• Capitalism as a game of bounty hunter.
• Capitalism as a framework structure where more complex political systems can be layered upon.
• Capitalism as a pervasive incentive structure that leads to the full causal chain from production to consumption where every contract is incentived fiscally, until the last, sales contract.
• Flat pricing dominates most deals and has consequences
• Capitalism inherently produces a system of privileges, which is needless.
  • Products that produce more satisfactory are priced higher
  • Flat pricing is usually unavoidable, such that we can not discriminate consumers
  • The two lead to an inevitable result that, to keep the richer consumers pay for better services, better products are more expensive. Otherwise they would not pay.
  • On the other hand, intentionally worsend products are produced to maximize total realized profit / deals made, as long as the downsized products do not affect the sales of premium products.
  • This phenomenon is so ubitquitous

How do we expect a system to make correct decisions

Say we can put a cabel of people in control, or set up a system, there is a measurable load on the system that it has to make certain amount of decisions, where some decisions turn out in our favor and some do not. The decisions, in turn, also changes the system itself, in a self catalysed loop.

I think the more decisions the system is designed to handle, the faster it fails. In a state machine model, I would consider the state of failure a terminal state that can hardly go back, such as a state of oligarchy, authoritarianism, centralization of various kinds which prevent further change into other states.

Modern capitalism amplifies the correct decisions it believes in through a series of amplification mechanisms.

Supreme court $\to$ Lower courts (incorrect decisions get overriden) $\to$ Financial institutions (incorrect decisions lead to profit loss) $\to$ Producers

In each step there involves a combination of threat of violence from a more powerful party, self-policing by a prediction over profit or punishment.

Morality, by Hume

I tried to distance my self from moral judgement in my essay whenever possible. I do not believe in any grand theory of morality that can be explained in simple words, like 'workers deserve fair pay'. I believe in a morality that is extremely nuanced, sometimes absurd and contrived.

If the average workers actually get fair pay, they will spend it on useless products, and prop up huge industries for momentary hedonism. It's a fact that the rich have so much money they don't know where to spend and the poor of the time can't even get a place to live. Inevitably they will blow the money on anime figurines, various copes that serve as nothing but a futile attempt at more of momentary hedonism.

To begin contemplation on morality, it must start from ground state, the Humean stance. Hume has a strong emphasis that the theories on 'ought' reside in a different realm than theories of 'is'.

I enjoy moral hypotheticals. It would be a good hypothetical when an entrepreneur deceived normies, extracted their wages to invest in the making of truly transformative development. You get fascinated by the results not knowing the full causal details that led up to it. This is the absurd.

If optimizing is the state of society, it is usually under-optimized.

People tend to have fears when they want to do something out of the ordinary, start a business, because they think the society is optimized and everything is saturated. No new things need to be written and companies already doing the best. Propaganda have done a great job preaching market as a mechanism.

It is true that it is a perpetually optimizing system, yet people tend to assume it is optimized, without much evidence whatsoever. It is actually underoptimized in most cases.

Ethics that is not conditioned on labour

I have always been cautious when it comes to 'ought' problems.

History of recent decades have been in a gradual shift of labour. In the past pretty much everyone can participate in menial, blue-collar physical labour.

Consequentially, the right-wingers claim those who work deserve cash, the left-wingers claim those who work deserve food. The development gradually shifted the demands. The vast majority of laborers do not produce even a fraction of value, produced by one single engineer in algorithms, or an AI scientist. Fundamentally, those are work ethics.

By their very same ethics, the vast majority deserve nothing? I'm sure they would like this idea.

I'm certain most jobs in most countries serve as nothing but nominal jobs that would have generated wages lower than what could sustain one's life. The system barely maintained the wages through the ubiquitous law of minimum wages and various policies that push for such coverage. They are just masked welfare. You think you are compensated for the efforts. In reality, you are getting relief checks in disguise.

Egoless elitism

I coined the phrase considering there would be people who consider my theory elitism, which is partial. The ego is never the point since I do not even acknowledge its existence. The greatest achievements in history are just those sparks of ingenuity that were followed by masses who try to adopt and appropriate the fruits for their own profits. Ideas just come to me. I would not consider myself entitled because the fact that ideas came to me.

Out of all perspectives, only the view that all events began through a spark of singularity that sometimes resides in a person's mind followed by a sequence of much more predictable outcomes, makes most sense and holds most explanatary power compared to all other views.

There is no point in debating whether free will exists, nor am I interested in its litigation of ontology beyond what serves productive goals of this post. Free will, is only conisdered as it appears, the apparent fact that you can make decisions and nothing beyond it, the apparent fact that it serves as an instrument in the happening of causality.

Historicism is partial because it can not account for the pervasive existence of free will. And it's a theory for the masses anyway because it teachs people to expect things to happen spontaneously. Either way, it's not going to hold any predictive power.

Equality to be assumed until further justification

I do not hold the view of equality simple as it seems, but rather I consider it a stance to be held without further evidence or need to change the view, as a starting point of thought. I hold the accusation why you would set up such an arbitary view or privileges instead of this null stance.

It is the void of reason that I call equality, not that I want to sweep things such that they appear equal.

I also have a disregard, or disdain for the status quo. Reason knows no temporal bounds. People get irritated over borders that get disputed that get moved a little bit, not knowing how much different it was in the past. It's a very common fallacy to reason in the way relative the status quo. Reason should be, absolute, relative to the origin point of null stance.

People call it a crime when a rich person gets his wealth reduced a bit, because its a reasoning with the status quo as a reference point. The correct method is to at least track it further back in time where nobody is much more wealthy, or the null stance where nobody is wealthier or less.

Opposite of transactional life and relationships? Entanglement.

People complain a lot about work, life, relationships being transactional, but I have not heard what is supposed to be the opposite.

The fundamental cause of 'feeling transactional' is due to the simplicity. That is, things are so simple it can be explained with a few words summed up as a transaction. That is to say reason easily captures your life.

An entangled life defies reason, because new things are happening, which defies human reason that currently prevails which includes the popular ideas, langauge, and narratives.

Some people may have a lengthy life, but it can be summed up briefly, if words are to be saved.

Creation is the opposite of analysis, because good creation defies analysis. Life is creation, whether you like it or not, it's going.

Consumerism is, too, what people complain about the transactional feeling, with a sense of nihilism and doom. It's the lack of involvement in the production of goods that led to the impression. On the other hand, politics stripped off people's access to production.

For all I've observed, capitalism does not cause alienation. It's always people that alienated themselves. When they do business they have to imagine themselves as businessmen who have to bargain for maximal profit. Normies are constantly taking various roles whenever they be a partner, a worker, a businessman or a student. There is nothing that forces them to comply with the expectation of norms of roles to 100%.

They can't even free their own minds.

Human experience as a graph, not islands of individuals.

Many people hold the bias to see the human experience as a matter of individual islands, each as a collection of experiences unique to a person, a nation, or some other categories. Fundamentally, I see it as a flattened structure where each person, devoid of any labels, occupies and lives on such a graph of human experience. The conceptual order matters.

You get in school, you feel isolated, and lonely, and perhaps stressed. You catch a cold, you feel feverish and suffer. These are the experiences which are modelled as nodes that follow higher probability connected from other nodes, upon conditions catching a cold, or entering school. If you get unlucky, you get in some truly rare nodes on the graph, such as rare illnesses or those unspeakable horrors, which I term outliers.

Shared human experiences are first-class citizens, as opposed to arbitary man-made labels such as nationalities, races.

1. Bundle of human experiences $\to$ Individuals
2. Nations $\to$ Experiences, trauma, stories unqiue to the nations, considered incomparable $\to$ Individuals

(2) comes with an extra category, where in (1), everyone is equal in front of life, the totality of experiences that life brings you. Substitute the nation with another other kind of bucket if needed.

Specifically, I consider it a state-transition graph, where nodes can represent human experience, impressions, states of consciousness, the set of beliefs one may have at one given moment, where the transition represents conditions, the luck, the unluck, the circumstances.

As the blueprint gets laid down, it gets obvious that overwhelming majority of experiences are universally shared. It's no longer a secret to guard. The urge to preserve your wealth when you get your first bucket of money, the moment you have your first crush, the torment of silencing oppression, the joy of unspoken privileges, the sensation and urges of narcissism, the feeling of doom and self-hate, the resentment against arbitary pain imposed by reality and the endless expression of irony, the warm and fuzzy. Each of them has been experienced, examined, liked or hated by countless people.

It's no longer a convenient perspective to see them as isolated stories to each person his own. Better turn the order of categories back.

It matters to acknowledge the finitude of one's own lived experience, either imposed by himself or circumstances outside of his control, especially when we want to seek the answer to the question, what humanity is. As one acknowledges the finitude, he frees himself from the pain of isolation; he also loses the bias and privilege of particularity. (On narcissism, existentialism, etc. All of them tackled at once)

I value works of art especially those involving plot and, melodies that follow that encode the exquisite emotions present, in their merit of conveying and archiving lived or imagined human experience, such that they are greatly shared, and persist into infinitude.

Parallel hypotheticals

I've progressed my internal mode of belief through 3 stages.

1. I believe X to be true.
2. I believe X to be true, under the condition Y. (Y tends to be axiomatic assumption of some kind)
3. I believe X to be true, under the condition Y. I believe M to be true, under the condition N. etc.

The merit is that most people aren't even aware that their thought happens in these forms. This form is what I believe to be the most genereal form of belief system, where both science and religions can be treated as a 'subset' of the said system.

Outside of the system, it's the void. There is nothing meaningful outside this system.

There isn't any need to state doubt against any assumptions made, be it Y, N. Simply being aware that the modes of belief exists, is enough to qualify as proper skepticism to me.

The classical atheism would argue over that, Y is wrong, or Y lacks proof, or some people need to prove Y, or N is more plausible, where specically N is obviously to be the assumptions that science makes, or truthiness of X must be proported to Y, or It's possible that D is true where D is some absurd thing (Russell's teapot).

I would simply present the picture of such 3 modes of belief. The failure is that a lot of people people can not think and act in a way that deviates from 1, or 2. Perhaps rigorous training is needed.

Liberating humanness from assigned bodies

Modern politics pushes for acceptance of the body one is born with, yet this is exactly against the individual freedom to deny an essence that the assigned body and phenotype forces onto the being. The prevailing ideology, is reactive to an adverse reality. It sees whatever body you get as fair and perfect, as long as this mindset pushes for positive attitude for the sake of positivity. The philosophical tradition, is to treat reality and life authentically, to acknolwedge nothing else other than existence itself (existentialism) as a fundamental starting point of contemplation.

When dignity and humanness is no longer tied to specific assigned physical bodies, it's finally fine to judge them as they appear. At the end of the day, the inhabitant will have to deal with the body knowing the fact that he can never leave it, perhaps much later in life when the awareness comes to him.

Psychological denial, a barrier to particular thought paths

Here I characterize internal contemplation, be it explicit or more implicit, a graph where an idea leads to another idea, an argument leads to another argument.

• There is no way I consider my nation-state to be flawed or any criticism
• There is no way I consider possibiltiy of myself being ugly
• There is no way I might be non-binary, and that I might enjoy it more when I present myself or look different.
• There is no way I am inferior in reasoning
• There is no way rich people live better lives and are not as evil as I thought

The disease of modern reason and discourse, is rooted in psychological denial. The denial is so profound in effects because it blocks a whole cascade of internal dialogue and personality development perhaps spanning over decades of one's life. Denial is when someone is mentally physically incapable of considering certain ideas, certain possibilities. Denial is the instinctual aversion to specific directions of dialogue.

It does not matter what someone says. The fact is deduced from behavior because usually the person himself isn't aware of such denial. Denial results in defects in personality development.

Absurd actions as a sound reaction to the absurd world

sound means logically valid

The world has been characterized as absurd which is popularly known. It is however an unfinished idea, lacking a sequel. I sometimes find it fun to react to the absurd world through equally absurd actions, not as in useless and purposefully performative, but as in absurd actions that properly produce gains for me. This is a largely unpopular idea because most people live in the bliss of rationalized world, where no absurdity is really expected to take place.

It's a process that I have lived through many times. Such absurd actions include extreme measures, extreme discipline, an overwhelming control that suppresses my own fear, shame and deliberately dismissing my own mental states such as depression and feelings/fear of being misunderstood.

Perhaps absurdity is an inherent property of the causal structure of reality. So it has to be acknowledged in both ways, in what is observed and what is to be done next.

Asymmetry of luck

Luck can not be forced, but the statistical distribution can be engineered.

I observed an asymmetry in the pursuit of success that, it is often case that some things may happen to you and some things may certainly not happen to you. To build the premise for success in computer science, you gotta have a decent grasp of English.

There are many things that may be done to build a premise, yet luck can not be built. Learn a new language, move to a new place, enter a field and just barely enter it, meet new people. Such asymmetry is the cause of the 'connection effect' where people complain about others having connections, manifested at a large scale.

The connection effect is not deliberate corruption in most cases. It's the flip side of the luck asymmetry phenomenon. To sample success, the outcomes must be possible at all first. To hire a person, the person must be known first.

Causal synthesis

The other insight is from a view from the causal graph. I mentioned causally important factors earlier. The part that can be engineered, is the synthesis of various causal factors. Modern coporations, especially the innovative ones are all successful causal synthesis of labour, capital, ingenuity.

I don't see it as mere cooperation. It's rather an aggreation of existing causally important, alive, driving factors. Seeing it as a cooperation is a less general perspective.

Change is mediated through sophisticated synthesis of powerful, tangible, intuitive, factors.

Common sense lifting

I've been adhering to a method which I now term, common sense lifting. The notions embedded in daily English language and the corpus of engineering and science have very intuitive, strong impressions, which serve as a good starting point for further theorizing.

I frequently adopt words from common English, terms from science, and gradually build theories and subtly refine the meanings to a point, perhaps completely changing it.

In addition to common English words and notions represented thereby, I also include phenomena that everyone experiences as part of common sense.

Correspondent information and computation

AI inference is a process of computation. Training is function approximation which is also computation.

Computation is a very exotic existence because the process itself can be competely captured by a system of language, while the medium of computation is always mediated through physical phenomena, be it classical or quantum phenomena. Language is a collection of symbols, the ways they are manipulated (aka. algebra), a definition of consistency which we call logic. This is an algebraic triple.

The symbols represent nothing to humans unless the meanings are assigned. The symbols can represent reality at any level by design. Here, by having symbols in a langauge defined to have no meaning at all unless assigned, we can consider the language to exist physically. That is, mathematics exist physically as long as the meanings are stripped.

The symbols are computed on a chip until perhaps the chip works completely unexpectedly, failing the computation. Up until that, we consider the algebra to exist physically.

The prompt you give AI that contains business secrets, is correspondent information, which is a fragment of language that tethers to reality closely, which perhaps take thousands of hours of inference for the AI to produce... Hereby I call it correspondent shortcut

Correspondent information is defined to be a statement consisting of symbols in a langauge that adhere to reality closely, as in having strong causal predictive power. Computation is the manipulation of symbols to produce other symbols that have causal predictive power.

I believe the dichotomy is a fundamental part of reality.

Take this to a bit further, we can denote publicly available information to be $\Sigma$

If it takes $n$ hours of inference for state-of-art AI to produce a statement $T$, its a piece of truth, worth $\Sigma n$

Information theoretic approach to nature vs nurture

• Human brain has 100 trillion synapses, about 90TiB at INT8
• LLM has 400 billion parameters (roughly correspond to synapses), about 372GiB at INT8
• Genes have 3.1 billion base-pairs, about 762MiB

Brain has enough state-space to accomodate that many possible states of configuration. To the point that the input data, senses seem to be a smaller state space.

I do not answer yes or no to most questions.

You don't need to pick a side. And you need to constantly tell yourself this.

That's a very common bias. Most questions aren't reducible to a zero-rank tensor.

Thinking can be trained behaviorally. I believe it's a very common thing to feel urged to answer questions specifically events of news with yes or no, perhaps of social influence. Another line I constantly tell myself is, It is what it is, especially in times of frustration, defeat, embrassment, estrangement. The line seems to contain no information but it moves your attention from temporary, one-sided representations of reality (aka. perception) back to what is the more fundamental reality.

Causal apathy, the flip side of Humean split

Causality does not care what humans believe in or feel.

todo.

Introducing substance, a measure of usefulness of philosophical theories

Some common theories that have little to no substance.

• The world is one, unified whole. There is no distinction between self, and otherness. The best thing to do is to do nothing. (Taoism, buddhism, etc)
• There is no meaning to anything
• The world is in constant change and we must adapt as it changes. (Marxism as seen in many types of propaganda, and as regurgitated by a lot of people)
• Everythng is directed by God, caused by God, and God is the ultimate good. (monotheism)

These theories tend to be apparently correct, aka. truism, yet they don't confer any predictive power whatsoever. People apparently agree with these theories with others due to social influence and in the back they are utterly confused by life. Life demands an answer, yet truisms can offer nothing; the gap is to be filled with substance.

I evaluate theories of metaphysics and physics as equal citizens when it comes to substance. It turned out theories in science gradually obtained more substance than theories in philosophy. Recent research in high-dimensional tensor spaces have offered more substance than relevant philosophies can do.

Substance is the fundamental cause of progress. Endless litigation in philosophy never produced anything. Through this clarification, it's palpable what substance means.

For any theory, any figment of thought, I judge it through 3 metrics, or axes

• Consistency. The theroy must be internally consistent according to any kind of logic.
• Correspondence. The theory must correspond to reality in a sane way, to have any use. It must be grounded in solving problems of real life.
• Substance. Theory with more substance is denser and confers greater prediction power

Temporal superiority

From years of my biohacking experience, the best biohacking is done early.

Current technology can at most prevent disease or adverse phenotype (such as a puberty one does not want) from happening, and its very nice if done right. Your toolkit shall mostly consist of nuclear receptor modulators such as hormones, targeted therapy drugs (originally designed for cancer) if you need; psychotropics are in its nascent stage but they can be greatly helpful in very times. Do not ever expect biohacking (non-surgical) to program a new phenotype; it's impossible and delusional, but never miss a chance to prevent an outcome.

Temporay sueperiority is the divergent subtrees starting from a node on the causal graph.

Novel tactics of reasoning

• Phenomenal extraction
  • The poetic approach. Observe phenomena yourself and write down a theory all by yourself, preferably using language never used by others, as in coining new phrases to depict a radically new perspective.
  • This is greatly underrated. Academia is mostly a circlejerk of dead philosophers.
• Algebraic analysis
  • Denote parts that are resistant to analysis as atoms, or variables.
• Zoom-out
  • Instead of trying to work within a certain system, try to draw more things outside the system into analysis. The zoom-out is a dialectic experience where a new dimension is added to analysis so it feels like 'getting a greater picture' where no former observation is trivially negated.
  • This includes framing a monovariate problem as a multivariate optimzation problem, reframing an engineering problem as a greater problem that involves social dynamics.
• Assumption mining
  • To discover as much assumed premises as possible
  • This when applied to personality or daily life as a whole, can change a lot.
• Chaotic sources
  • Some sources may be mined to have more ideas to come to you. There is no value in playing rough. Exposure to sources that are as chaotic as possible may give you surprises.
  • This came as a major accelerator in my reasoning trajectory. Such sources may include close contact with an eccentric person, and niche forums.
• Agentic inverse
  • Dothing things that contradict the agentic pattern of human life

Humans are pathetically agentic

• You can not fully concentrate on a next task without finishing the task at hand
• You have an internal recognized state of life that directs your current plans
• Life goes linearly, sequentially, like ticking things off a list
• You do not try to think in the place of an alternative, a life that does not currently belong to you
• Older people often have to be constantly reminded to get some things done
• You follow a schedule perhaps made by a university, a company

I made some major progress over my goals by unintentional direct contradiction of the agentic nature, 'abnormally' shifting focus on things that I planned to do much later even beyond my own expectation. Thinking about things that a depressed (or whatever state I was in) person shouldn't be thinking.

Humans are comfortable when one's thoughts and acts align the internal agentic awareness of oneself. They can not comfortably think like a God in an alternative context like an LLM.

What is existentialism, nihilism?

The two are perhaps the most confusing terms on internet. Most people don't understand them.

Internet, and people in general are just constantly marketing their own ideas in the names of philosophers, since nobody can check them anyway.

Existentialism and nihilism are closely related, two clusters of ideas.

They aren't exactly like theories, but in essence, immediate attitudes on life that you can hold at any given moment.

• Existentialism is a deep reconsideration against one's existence itself, through that you cease the tasks at hand, you give up your past and pre-held ideas, prejudice, beliefs, such that you are fully immersed in the contemplation, where you are radically aware of yourself and not external things.
• Existentialism is a rejection of a determined future, a struggle against prophecy imposed by yourself and others.
• Existentialism is the acceptance of an apparent lack of meaning of life or universe in general, where one is aware of his freedom and ability to create. (acceptance, awareness)

Nihilism is interesting, because there are many circulating concepts equally labelled as 'nihilism'.

• The notion that 'love does not exist because it's all neurochemistry, chemicals'
  • It's a sort of 'apples to oranges' fallacy.
  • I don't need to expand on this because readers can derive an answer based on the essay.
• Nobody cares about anything. It's all just money.
  • This one is cynicism mislablled as nihilism.
• Probably many more misnomers.....
• That life is wireheading with extra steps. The universe is a question that looks for answer which better off not exist in the first place.
  • This one is legitimate
• That my life is deeply troubled, repetitive, unfulfilling, going nowhere.
  • I regard this as 'personal nihilism' as a reaction to the personal predicament. It's very heavily leaning towards dealing with the problem of one's own life instead of some general statement about the universe.

To really dissect nihilism, we have to consider the exact mental states.

Emotive nihilist state (anhedonia, depression, withdrawals) $\to$ Formation of an opinion, an argument

The 'emotive nihilism' is very prevalent but there is probably nothing to analyze in that because it's just a mental state. Take some stimulants and it will be gone. The emotive nihilist state can, indeed be a source of inspiration, despite being tormenting at times. Sometimes I get new ideas in that.

The ability to tell that you actually do have novel ideas, is a sign of maturity

The so-called maturity is hereby defined in the context of non-neurotypical person. I used to get a lot of whims over everything and I thought everyone else got it too. It took me many years to realize that most don't.

Certain philosophilical perspectives lead to dead ends

There is always a choice on the set of primitives to start with when beginning to analyze a problem. You can theorize about free will and it will be some sort of litigation around the nature of free will. You can also choose to build a theory upon a primitive adjacent to 'free will', such as a person's apparent ability to choose among a set of possible courses of action.

This is what I consider to be the 'algebraic method', algebraic as in abstract algebra. There is a particular set of primitives chosen and your theory unfolds to analyze the relationships of the primitives. A bad primitive set can lead to dead end. There is no reasonable theory to build on 'consciousness', 'desire' in itself, because its impenetrable, resistant to analysis, for example.

Math is spectacular because the entire field works on good algebraic primitives, readily corresponding to real world phenomena.

Abstract algebra is also not concerned with whether group, ring, or field exists because they are all figments of language anyway. Hence, when building theories I am also not very concerned with the existence of my primitives either. They just need to plausibly exist such that the theory has use. ie. Existential claims are irrelevant.

Can philosophy be learned?

I heavily contest the idea that philosophy can be learned through traditional way of reading. A model for such learning can be that, the essays serve as computational shortcuts of thinking where each essay saves $n$ amount of time, where the thinking aims to produce a truthful, coherent body of thought.

Philosophy tends to build a greater picture due to the metacognitive nature, which is very hard through mere words.

The main problem is on the writers. I disdain philosophers as much as I disdain mathematicians. Abstract algebra can be perfectly captured with Haskell (or FStar which is better) and is extremely simple, but they choose to express things in such an ugly way.

Rebuilding things is never a shame. Rebuilding entails a complete audit, which is great for a high-stake project like building one's worldview in a deeply adversarial environment. In many cases, faster than finding proper text and reading it.

The immediate

The immediate is what I call the instantaneous emotions, feelings, volition, urges, everything that is felt, experienced at any given moment. The immediate seems highly irrational.

If you compile your past down to a short summary, it's easily described, and analyzed into a coherent narrative, thereby giving a semblance of rationality.

I gave a rationalization of the immdiate through the combination of causality and reduction by calculus, as above. That is, the past is causally, inevitably an integral over the immediate.

The curse of success

... is that a sucesss more or less justifies the absurd, the evil, the pain in the past leading up to it, including the things you hated most.

I never said it does justifies all of the past; otherwise it turnes into pseudo-rational pseudo-poetic rambling.

It's perhaps worth mentioning that some people internalize their past, as in, accepting pain as an integral part of their life and identity. Whether or not a specific thing in the past is jusfitied with regards to a certain current success, is subject to argumentation which you know how it would be dealt with.

Modern recruiting is akin to dating on dating apps, while universities act as whore certifiers

Everyone hates dating apps, social media, and various modern things seen as degenerate. The same people ignored work.

They long for an 'organic life' which is how most people put it, but only personally. Personl issues are however much less important than, production.

They feel there is something upsetting about social media and. not work?

There is no market, no power, no money, but stories that go on. Everything except the stories are spooks, invented by cowards.

It's your very personal thing to make your story great.

红雾异变成功后

琪露诺：咱就知道，博丽灵梦和雾雨魔理沙这两个小姑娘还想硬闯咱的雾之湖？回神社再练495年吧

红雾异变失败后

琪露诺：咱就知道，红魔馆那三只笨蛋，早知道让我、大妖精和露米娅住进去得了

如果是老一辈左左，对ai色情这个事，就算抗议，肯定是这个欢乐多的起手思路：把马斯克本人和他全家女性用他家的ai，p出裸体和性爱视频然后公开在街头传播，还引经据典各种创作自由法律和商业法律，消费者法律，要求处罚自己可以，除非同时处罚grok，否则违反什么什么规定，是不公对待消费者而非制造者。

马斯克一旦生气就招笑了，不生气就自己全家承压。当年法国对未经当事人许可的真实人物裸体艺术创作允许不允许上公共报刊的事，就是左左们这么把保守派逼死的。

还是要到了相同境遇才能知道，被对手无能气晕并非虚构的夸张情绪。本来预计左左遇见用性羞辱人的，要开始用左派最爱的社科黑话发明新概念了，结果直接跪下给磕头说小的这就和保大人一起封锁色情制品，再也不合理化荡妇了。拉胯完了。

长期和左左的斗争，让我已经习惯性的预演左左思路，然后反驳，结果前几年LGBTQ就是左左最后的余辉，此后所有的议题就一泻千里，彻底清真化，再也发明不出流动性别之类的有趣概念。

当时我为了对冲，发明出了一整套流动种族的概念，以此解构左左说的殖民者原罪论，说左左固定的认为有一个固定受害种族是不科学的，因为的确种族的鉴定确实有很多操作空间，为了理论成型，过程中还补全了我的知识盲区，发现历史上真有不少白人归化成了印第安人。唉，再无敌的对冲基金，也得要有东西可以对冲啊。

现在的弱鸡左左看见AI色情：关闭，一定要关闭。

现在的弱鸡左左看见新时代孔子说留学生三通一达：呜呜呜，不是的，别乱说。

我虽然是极右，但对冷战左左的辩经水平和思路还是惊为天人。本以为是个开始，没想到是巅峰。

以前我觉得怎么会有人希望长久以来的敌人振作起来？角色还会说“现在的你很无趣，等你振作起来再杀你”，太虚构作品内容了吧，我只想手撕左左。

这几年是真的理解了，去找左左玩智力体操，结果愤怒的发现：什么叫你讨厌色情作品？

面对抖音，长江被美国0元购，天齐被智利0元购，共产党祖国对此的看法是没有看法，没有因此多祭出一点特别的反制。

但是这一切怪谁呢，还不是只想着配合共产党的资本家自己造成的。土耳其面对土国商人在肯尼亚和叙利亚受损，直接也不言语就煽动颠覆一波，然后叙利亚重建合同大项目全部土耳其承包，一切既往经济利益也承认，现在土耳其还享受最惠关税。

要是汉族资产阶级有土耳其和印度商业阶层一根毛的智慧，也该知道必须打钱支持民运和民族主义团体，早早赶走共产党建立右派国家，只有这样才有强大祖国保护，美国和智利根本不敢0元购

俄罗斯和土耳其的网络反美舆论还是说伊朗要挺住，大家要一起反美。只有中国人突出一个两面三刀，光速割席，落井下石。所以为什么出现共产党这种全汉族常委的政党，都是社会土壤产物。

川普

埃尔多安（非自愿）

莫迪

欧尔班（非自愿）

普京（有军衔的情报人员，属于苏联军政府特色）

最新一位即将撤离中国母港邮轮是华夏国际邮轮旗下的鼓浪屿号，这艘中国邮轮市场老将即将转手给一家新成立的西班牙邮轮品牌Corazul Cruceros运营。

该船预计于今年7月4日从西班牙巴塞罗那开启首航，10月后，还将前往加勒比海（以多米尼加为母港）及南美洲运营。

无独有偶，旅界此前曾报道，蓝梦邮轮宣布旗下蓝梦之歌号自2026年1月4日起暂停客运销售与运营。今年3月，这条船将转手给俄罗斯运营商，经营从海参崴到库页岛、勘查加半岛的俄罗斯远东航线。

与此同时，入籍中国四年后，招商维京伊敦号经历了难称如意的疫情后国内母港运营时光，今年暑期即将回归欧洲市场。

国内母港还剩下哪些玩家？ 答案是一只手都能数得过来。旅界此前曾报道MSC地中海邮轮今年会以上海、釜山互为母港，除了搭载中国客人出境游，还可以接纳韩国客人入境游，皇家加勒比近期则在孤注一掷力推韩国季。

只不过最爱看淫乱话题来泻火的八成都男的，为了不得罪男观众，相关话题直接不谈男留学生而已。

就和峰哥说的一样，“都说我偏袒夜店女的，没骂她们，我也没骂玩夜店的男的啊，我也没骂未婚同居的男的啊”。