How cheating works

Maybe my last post was too cryptic. If I’m to contribute to the fight against civilizational decay, best to keep it as clear as possible.

So I say the leftist is a communist is a cheater. Commies cheat. How does cheating work? That’s actually a very relevant question.

Cheating in games
It is easy to understand cheating in literal games. For instance, in a board game like colonizers of Catan — no one looks, whoop suddenly I have two extra resource cards and whaddya know, they’re exactly what I needed to build that city! Did I cheat? Did you observe the slight of hand? Probably you did not — likely you trusted players to play fair and did not feel the need to observe the card pile with eagle eyes. So I’m just gonna go ahead and put that city on the map. Who knows, might even win the game because of that! Occasionally, cheating in board games works.

Of course, time goes by, and people notice you strangely always having the right cards for the right situation. They get angry, accusations fly, and the game is ruined. What can they do?

The answer is obvious: they put a non-cheater in charge of the game, entrust him with the card pile: the game leader. This works relatively well; cheaters may still cheat in minor ways, like dropping an extra street from their own stack on the map when no one is looking, but the sting has been removed, so to say. The resource cards are out of his reach. What does the cheater do?

The game leader is the obvious weak point; either the cheater bribes the game leader or bamboozles him, but that is easier said than done. If your game leader is halfway good at its job, cheaters will suddenly find they have to play fair, or what tends to happen; they stop playing that particular game. Congratulations, you’ve beaten the cheater!

This simulation of game, players, cheaters and game leader holds true for any type of game. See video games such as first person shooters: cheaters use stuff like aimbotting and wallhacking to bypass the rules of the game. Here the game leader are the developers of that game. If they do a decent job, cheaters are spotted and banned for good. If they suck at their job, the game is overrun by cheaters and is ruined.

Cheating in life
And that is also the way it works in real life. Naturally, the rules of real life are not as set in stone as the rules in a board- or video game, but it’s the same principles really. Just, stakes are higher.

On second thought, that the rules are not as set as stone is relevant. That is why cheating in real life is a notch more effective than cheating in video games; we say that Gnon is the ultimate arbiter, the ultimate game leader so to say, but Gnon likes it when some of his rules are bent. Which rules get to be bent and which don’t? Only Gnon knows, and man interprets. But it is in that gray area that cheaters find fertile soil.

Of course, pretty much everyone still recognizes a cheater. Cheaters who cheat in the gray area also tend to cheat in black and white areas.

The lowest form of cheating is of course a simple scam: ‘hey, you don’t know me but I’m a trustworthy guy, give me a hundred dollars and I’ll double it for you’. It’s a one-on-one scam, which works because it bypasses group defenses and forces it’s recipient to be his/her own game leader. Not everyone is good at being game leader, so the scam pays off.

People hate these kind of scammers, with good reason. It’s an obvious lie: the scammer promised to return the investment with interest, but he didn’t. That’s cheating! However, the scammer is also relatively powerless; if caught red-handed, he is always humiliated. Because the scam is small in scale, it’s potential to do damage is limited.

Cheating in groups
So even though our scammer finds a decent amount of juicy situations without game leaders, he is humiliated every now and then for mediocre awards. That cannot do. What can he do? He can expand the scale of his scam, of course! This means: find a group of scammers to cooperate with, and find a bigger playground to operate your scam. A bigger scam means bigger pay-offs! For instance, the recent twitter ‘give me 500 bitcoin and I’ll double it’ scam. The scammers cooperated, hacked the game leader (Twitter HQ) and, pretending to be trustworthy twitter personalities, scammed people out of a ton of money. Mission passed!

But still, this kind of scam tends to be a one time thing, as you are inevitably found out and will probably not succeed again (not with twitter, at least). So if you are a scammer, you usually want more worth for your money. What do?

Well, from our scammer’s perspective, the main problem is that people dislike our scams and call us out for it. If people would just stop doing that, we’d have no problem. Scammers always mitigate this risk by disguising their scams as righteous. This part tends to throw honest people off: ‘how can you not only lie through your teeth but also pretend like you are doing those you scam a favor!‘ Well I mean, that’s just scamming 101. If you were being honest about your lies, you might as well not lie at all. I, for one, respect a liar who lies till he dies.

But acting righteous only takes you so far; it is after all a front, a potemkin village meant to sell your scam. So inevitably, if people start prodding your scam with a stick it comes falling down. You want to prevent people like me from pointing out your scam.

What is the solution?

Getting to the game leader
Well, the bottom line is this: you need to get rid of, or replace, the game leader. That is all it boils down to. Get your coalition of scammers to become game leader, and the sky’s the limit. You could literally burn people’s businesses down while telling them it is for their own good! Beautiful.

So first you need to get rid of the old game leader. If you have a long line of game leaders, this part tends to get bloody. But it has to be done! Need to get your hands a bit dirty if you want to get anywhere in life.

Now, if you’re lucky, there might not be a long line of game leaders in charge. Hell, you might even live in a democracy in which the game leader is designed to be weak! Great! A democracy lends itself to cheaters naturally; just put your most charismatic liar in charge. Make sure he understands his task as a PR figure head pretending to be game leader, a task which of course receives good rewards, and boom: the Bushes, Clintons and Obama explained. It really is that simple.

Now with your scamming coalition having replaced the game leader, the possibilities are endless; you have pulled off the ultimate scam, and when someone calls you out on the scam, you can use force to humiliate him. Great! Of course because you’re a coalition of scammers you have to keep the pretense of the scam going on, so you can’t exactly start to rob people at gunpoint, but you sure can sue people who defend their home from robbers.

So now we’ve entered the highest stage of scamming, the power scam, the scamming suprême, where not only do you scam people, you take away their power to resist the scam. How do we call the type of cheater that pulls of these kinds of scams? We call ’em leftists, progressives or commies.

Evolution selects for group scammers
My take is that commies are evolutionary optimized for these kinds of scams. Essentially, all they do is run giant ponzi schemes meant to scam as big a crowd as possible, be it a family, a village, a country or an entire empire. You’ll always see the same themes: a scam dressed up in righteous clothes, that if prodded falls apart, thus they try to stop you from prodding it. But always will there be a trail of lies and cheating. There has to be, because as we see, the whole thing from the start was engineered as a scam. Which is why whenever you prod a climate commie or prog you quickly discover he has no interest in the truth, besides trying to convince you that he has immense interest in the truth.

Thing is, you can dress up a lie as colorful as you want. The more you talk, the easier it is to hide something. The best lies always have a kernel of truth to them — take global warming, which takes the truth to heart that we simply do not know all the inside outs of planet earth, so it’s entirely possible that industry changes climate. Of course our current observations point to industry having a not so large effect on climate, but already in that nuance lies the potency of the lie. Progressivism, same story: racism exists, it’s a remarkably small problem, but it exists, and progs blow that up. Leftists are good at pulling off stunts like these.

That commies are good at pulling off stunts like these might be a surprise to some. I recognize a cheater when he tries to sell me insurance, I’m sure I’d recognize a cheater in the white house!

Well, sometimes yes, but sometimes no. To dismantle a cheater you need to hang with him personally, get to know him, see him respond in unfamiliar situations. You don’t really know any of the presidents. You’ve likely never even met them. Your interaction with them is entirely one-way, through hearsay, video footage and media snippets.

All these channels of information can be manipulated, and commies know this very well. It’s what they’re good at. Take the following example by reactionary hero Lee Kuan Yew. Young Lee’s fighting the communists in Singapore, right? Commies were popular in twentieth century Asia. And their popularity was intimidating, to Lee also, who at political rallies noticed pro-communist proposals getting louder applause than usual. Guess the people really want communism huh? That is, until Lee noticed certain people were always in the crowd. And moreso, these people only clapped during pro-communist proposals. And moreso, they only clapped when given a signal by a handler! Lee was impressed. A typical commie stunt.

Now imagine if you will, what kind of commie stunts you can pull off if you have near full control of the media. The possibilities are endless! I mean sure, with the free internet your scams tend be exposed a tad quicker, but notice how that video is on youtube, and it might be removed for ‘inciting hatred’ any day. Truth is, mass media offers countless possibilities for cheating, and just as many ways for shaming people who even in silence call out your scams.

No honor among scammers
Of course, a scam is still a scam, and eventually, give it years or decades, people catch on. Obama was the lightbringer in 2008, who is he now? Surely a shadow of his former prophet status.

But you get my point right? While scammer A smiles in front of the camera, scammer B pressures a bakery to ‘bake the f*cking cake bigot’. That’s the power scam, the one-two. Scammer A plays game leader providing cover to scammer B, who in turn pays respect to scammer A. One person distracts the crowd, the other steals their wallets. That’s all leftism is.

And that’s why it all breaks down in the end. You think scammer A and B like each other? They know the nature of their relation. They trust each other as far as they can spit! The situation might be mutually beneficial to them, but the moment their scams run out is the moment their friendship runs out and they turn on each other. After all, none among them took the title of game leader serious in the first place. Hence, leftist singularities.

Back to a good game leader
Luckily, the solution is now obvious: re-install a trustworthy game leader. Trump is solliciting for that job. We are in a historically unique position, since Trump is only partially game leader; like I said, democracy ensures weak, temporary game leaders by design. For Trump to become a real game leader, he has to break out of the democratic mold. He has to become king, as reactionaries call the game leader, or dictator, as cheaters call the game leader. Naturally, Trump would be a good game leader; he has a knack for calling out cheaters (#fakenews).

But the level of cheating is unprecedented; any good scammer worth their salt is making a career in politics. It’s just where all the scammers end up; good people tend to steer clear from democratic politics, because why would they want to join a scamming coalition? So Trump has boatloads of shit to deal with.

For instance, as a final case study in scamming: the corona scam. The corona scam very nicely follows all the rules stipulated above: it is a lie with a kernel of truth, that kernel being that COVID-19 is a real virus, it is contagious, and it is slightly more deadly than the flu. The lie is of course that it justifies shutting down the economy and hurting Trump and his voters as much as possible. It doesn’t. It’s not nearly as deadly, and at this point has also burned out. The corona pandemic is over. Yet the corona scam is in full swing: first the WHO was appointed to game leader, but when they did not spread enough panic, dr Fauci was appointed to game leader, who somewhat understands that the point of the scam is to undermine Trump by spreading as much panic as possible. We might never be able to touch another person again! It’s just the new normal folks. Wear a mask for the rest of your life.

Trump, were he a fair game leader, should have called out the corona scam for what it was. Then again, would he have lost voters over that? Tough to say. Gnon’s grey area. Sometimes the scammers get their way.


  1. Nah, your last post wasn’t cryptic at all. Your present post is somewhat cryptic because it relies on the word “cheating”. I’d say cheating is only possible if there is an agreement on set of rules. No rules, no cheating.

    Of course, there are laws, but unless man accepts the authority of whover passed those laws, man does not feel an obligation to follow those laws and will do so at most to the extent that punishment for breaking the laws is larger than any benefit from breaking those laws. People have always been breaking laws for ideological or religious reasons.

    Any religion gives a set of rules that the faithful are expected to follow. Joining a religion usually implies that these rules are accepted. Thus within a religious community there really is a set of rules every follower agrees to.

    Some religions require there followers to follow the rules even in interaction with non-believers. Other religions explicitly give a different set of rules for interactions with non-believers.

    And I think this is where your “cheating” metaphor breaks. Communism requires good communists to lie in order to achieve communist rule. Islam has taqiya. Following a set of rules is not “cheating”

    1. Joining a religion usually implies that these rules are accepted. Thus within a religious community there really is a set of rules every follower agrees to.

      Yes, a religion acts as a rulebook to keep things fair, like the rulebook for football keeps football fair.

      But religion is one way to establish, if a very powerful way. Rules get to be set up informally, culturally, through law, etc…. Just, through daily interaction.

      Communism requires good communists to lie in order to achieve communist rule.

      No no, that’s the thing. There is no communist rulebook, just like there is no progressive rulebook. The point is always to scam, and any scammer worth his salt breaks every rule if he needs to. Commies never follow Marx’ actual rules; just insofar it benefits their scam.

      Leftists are not beholden to rules in the same way most people are. That is exactly their strength. Yesterday the leftist told you the sky was green, today he says it’s blue, tomorrow he’ll say it’s purple.

      Islam has taqiya.

      If you have a rule that permits cheating, you have bad game design. Need a new game leader to implement better rules. Taqiya pretty much explains Islam’s inability to live in peace with any of its neighbors. Jews have a similar thing no? ‘It’s OK to lie to the Goyim’ or sth. It’s dumb, like a rule a four year old would come up with. Vivat Christianity!

      1. There’s a meta-rule – which is “the more pure leftist wins” but that’s (of course) ill-defined and subject to cheating.

        Ultimately the more pure leftist is whomever the egregore decides it is which is part of what leads to the holiness spiral as each person tries to please the hive mind by getting ahead of it.

  2. What about the effects of repeated and on-going cheating on the honest players? Surely either their interest in the game or their honesty is going to disappear as the game leader lets the cheaters run rampant.

    “Game leader, Joe just grabbed a wool card out of the deck.”
    “Yeah, but he had a hard divorce last year. Why can’t you cut him a little slack?”
    “Game leader, now Fred is sneaking resource cards, too.”
    “Why are you such a stickler and tattle-tale? You’re not the game leader.”
    “Game leader, Joe took two more wool cards!”
    “Fine, fine. We’ll compromise: Joe has to put one of those cards back.”

    Either I’m going to walk away from the game, or I’m going to start cheating like mad myself. It’s pretty clear this is how civilization works: it burns through honesty, fair-play, and self-sacrifice. Look at the peoples who have been civilized the longest: the Chinese, the Middle-Easterners, the Greeks and Italians. They know deep in their bones that it’s all a scam; that you’ve got to look out for number one, and maybe your family; that law, duty, and patriotism are just grifts the rulers run to get you to cough up your money, your labor, and your life. Opting out of the game isn’t an option, so everybody cheats as much as they can possibly get away with, without feeling the smallest particle of guilt.

    We Northwestern Europeans, being only recently civilized by comparison, aren’t really hip to this yet. We can pose as cynics and realists, but we really feel bad when we don’t follow the “rules.” Paradoxically, this was our great strength, because it let us cooperate better than our older competitors and dominate them, but it looks like those days are done. Now that we’ve let all these shifty over-civilized congenital cheaters into our territory and handed them the keys to the kingdom, we get to experience the same forces that shaped them, first hand and on fast forward.

    1. Yes, it is a sad truth that if cheaters run the game long enough, honest men drop out. This is a rational and understandable choice. And we just so happen to live in an era where cheaters have been running the game for a long time.

      Jim is of the opinion that for the majority of history, cheaters do not run the game. This seems probable to me. Monarchs and emperors tend to be decent game leaders. When civilization runs well, virtuous people are rewarded for their virtuousity. It is only in times of civilizational decline that cheaters take over.

      1. In times of decline, the cheating is worse, of course, but it’s always there and it’s always tolerated because civilization’s bureaucratic, rule-bound systems are not very good at detecting it, and rarely punish it vigorously enough. Consider the Gypsies. Yes, they were treated brutally and “oppressed” by countless governments over the ages, but their parasitic, cheating-based lifestyle could only exist due to the tolerance and protection of those governments. Their strategy simply wouldn’t work among barbarians: race of wandering scammers would have been wiped out if they couldn’t run and hide behind Caesar’s skirts.

        1. I’m no historian, but here’s my take.

          There is such a thing as ‘the right to cheat’. Basically meaning: the game leader (and players through the game leader) have the right to punish and humiliate a cheater caught in the act of cheating. However, since it is impossible to detect every minor form of cheating, the game leader accepts his limitations and in effect grants cheaters the right to try and cheat the game leader. Thus, sometimes people come to the game leader and say: ‘the gypsies are causing trouble!’ and the game leader may respond: ‘ehh it’s not 100% but killing the gypsies will cause me more trouble than it’s worth. Best to exclude them from prominent positions and keep it at that.’

          Now a guy like the Cominator might say it is definitely worth to kill the gypsies. Which is an interesting take. But my impression is that as a game leader you have natural limitations, and while you may sometimes test those limitations, best to not overstep them.

          Of course, once the gypsies overstep their right to cheat, game leader can undertake action. No doubt gypsies have received their share of punishment and banishment, like the Jews when the Romans expelled them.

          1. The problem with that solution is that it puts “cheat by accusing someone of cheating and win *permanently* against your rival” on the table. You may eliminate the gypsies but now you get higher stakes competition to manipulate the machinery.

            The jim / Aidan Maclear solution would be to leave it slightly informal – IOW to devolve sovereignty – if the locals decide the gypsies have gone too far and round up and kill some then they’re the best judges of it. Maybe other ethnic groups avoid the area controlled by the clannish people in the future but that’s fine too.

            Formalism is good but devolved sovereignty is necessary as well.

          2. The jim / Aidan Maclear solution would be to leave it slightly informal – IOW to devolve sovereignty

            is that not what I said? It’s what I meant to have said, anyway. Game leader keeps some rules informal on purpose, and delegates whatever rule maintenance is outside his power to local game leaders.

  3. This article seems to be a very good frame for looking at the actions of our enemies. Combined with Jim’s work on holiness spiraling, I believe it is or could almost be a complete theory.

    1. Thank you. Sometimes I still have the urge to write, but when I actually sit down and do it, I always feel like I am repeating stuff I already said. For instance, the left jumped on the chinese flu like it was a life buoy.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *