Wednesday, April 18, 2018

The Fall of China

The Israelite leader Israel Joseph Benjamin II, Chacham of Israel, after his visit to China at the middle of last century, says in his report on Chinese clandestine Judaism, presented to the western Israelite leaders, that in one epoch the Chinese Jews mixed themselves with the population of the mongolic race through mixed marriages: "They keep their faith with the characteristic tenacity distinguishing the Hebrew race, they even now do not marry but women of their same religion"
This one has occasionally fantasized that China may survive, and wait until another cycle before being eaten. It is, of course, impossible with this level of exposure, but presented with the image of clannish and highly defensive Chinese, there nonetheless exists the fantasy that this one particular group of people, blessed with a large landmass and a large population, might nonetheless maintain their integrity throughout, and defy the process of decay, and prove that, inconceivably, somehow, Terra still has a few thousand years left before the beginning of rot.

China even had its own holocaust, and allied with the Allies, burners of Germany, in the Israel Foundation War. The Rape of Nanking didn't get nearly as much play as The Holocaust, but it's always there, in the subsidized public school text books, like a precursor to the Holocaust; another story based on broadcasts that weren't sent at the time, bodies that were never found, et cetera, like intellectual groundwork being laid just in case Stalin went off the leash and refused to build those demonstrative gas chambers for museums of imposed shame; even if we didn't have the Holocaust in viable form, we have our Rape of Nanking waiting in the wings, just waiting to be revised so that innocent Chosen were the primary victims. Even if we'd exposed the lies in Europe, another one was ready in China, dutiful servant. Apparently those completely wrong Japanese thought that China was on the Allies' side and was planning to invade them from the west, just like Germany completely wrongly did about Russia from the east, and even if that absent mass of innocent bodies backed up by satellite evidence is actually verifiable we haven't heard about it and we don't care. Those naughty dummkopf cartoon villains, they'll get you every time and force you to shoulder someone else's responsibilities.

Planetary rot in itself, like death, is not strictly speaking an occasion for ultimate sorrow and the gnashing of teeth, but still, if one likes people--those bipedal things stumbling about a new material environment, eating and fighting and staring at it all and trying to figure it out--one may occasionally be captured by a fanciful desire of permanence, or at least "more," in the enjoyment of their current status, whatever it may be.
It is said that Jews came to China from the north-westem part of India by about the third century after Christ; they first remained secretly in Ning-hia, Hantcheou and Peking, and later became established in Kai-fung-foo". A dangerous fifth column of secret Jews had entered China, who as a result of their total adaptation through the centuries, to the racial and social characteristics of the Chinese people are now dangerously confounded and diluted in the population of that country. It should be noted that although the Israelites of the former celestial Empire are considered among the most mixed with the indigenous race, since the last century they have kept the rigid custom of marrying only among themselves, and the above mentioned Hebrew leader says that they have kept their faith "with the characteristic tenacity that distinguishes the Hebrew race"
We have discussed previously how the unstoppable force that is here called "Judaism" is a component not of a mistake in evolution on Terra--that of ineffective parasites who destroy their own hosts without any concern for their own subsequent survival; an evolutionary "mistake" or "oversight"--but as part of a transmaterial process in which the desire to, across continents and a dozen generations, destroy all current, and also all possible, material hosts is not an evolutionary oversight, but part of a larger process whereby a planet whose evolution has stagnated, or indicates preparedness for a later stage of development, is, in a way, "digested," permitting its accumulated mass of memory ("recordatio"?) to be dispelled and not stuck in relative stasis around an outdated planet which it is no longer appropriate for it to continue using.

(Historical aside: note that "third century after Christ" where they began taking China around the time their Council of Nicea began detailing the process of taking Europe, where they could be more easily recognized and the conquest had to unfold differently.)

The quotes about Judaism taking China which I stuck above are from this book, the full version of which is quite valuable and interesting, but if you know the story of how they work, you know how the book must necessarily describe what happened. Breed a few hapless fools to obtain desired characteristics, focus on raising the ones who kept most of the mind but got most of the desired exterior features, create thereby a useful sub-race that can begin intermarrying; meld in like locals, then change politics as locals just like you and me. Jews pass so well in Europe because that worked so well; it works in China too, sadly for them (and us and everyone). Nonetheless, due to carefully honed perceptions of Chineseness over the many centuries, reading about the specifics can be exciting, like watching a murder movie where the victim is not a soft, bratty teenage cheerleader, but some 7'2" professional rugby player, and even though you know damned well it's a murder movie, the seeming capability of the intended victim makes you sort of hope "he'll suddenly grab the dude with the knife and pummel him and this will be an entirely different movie than I thought it was going to be."

Nonetheless, as always, the terraphage triumphs, Jews take China, and the camera fades over a gray planet that crumbles like ash (actually, one that's probably viable terrain for at least another go in a few thousand years). It's sad, in its own way; one is almost tempted to believe that it doesn't matter, or that the eventual victor will evolve stories not only about how they found this planet that no one was using (a planet without a people for a people without a planet, lol) while fleeing absolutely undeserved interstellar persecution, but still eventually forming at least a primitive zeal for life, and a use of art and music that doesn't involve copying or feces and rutting jokes; or, that they'll do all the predictable bad things but, in so doing, develop a genuine passion for what they've been imitating, and more on to more complex subjects, becoming essentially human. It's certainly deserved, but it's still sad in its own way that the giant quest will end in everyone's death, as every host is slain and there's nothing left to steal, no matter how cunningly approached, and it's either become an honest and inventive and hard-toiling agriculturalist, or simply tear apart those who have a little of what's left, and die alone in a bunker without truth and principles to comfort you. We love, and may often wrongfully revere as justice, the scare stories of what happens to a people or an individual who tries to live without parasites, but even in their deaths--in those material moments before learning anything else--those people can seek comfort in the, imaginary to the evil ones, concepts of truth and justice that seem like illusions in the world of the random god of random evolution. The k'arash by and large understand what this one says, and it is in those nascent or final moments that they have as much comfort in their actions as good people, for the honest realization of their desire to destroy beginnings, even be it the last Terran "Jew" finally perishing atop an Alpine Range of stolen technology, fulfills itself in their joining their prey in death. It seems unjust, to us, that the ending of humanity on Terra would be a happy occasion rather than a sad one, and would not instead be some moment of spasmodic realization by the last Jew that he has done something harmful to himself and missed out on good things and only inherits final moments of nothingness; yet, that damnation is assumed in error, for the same type of fulfillment that one man might obtain by dying for decency and refusing to become himself indecent, can be duplicated by the k'arash who has died doing and embodying what he completely believes in, and having accomplished his purpose. "Good" people, in the sense of growing a greater understanding and/or expression of what we might call higher emotional states, may die content in that, just as destroyers may go happily extinct for fulfilling their own functions. That is why this symphony, this verse, can be more beautiful, more meaningful, than we at first understand; it is because part of the impact, of the beauty, is being aware that their part of the fugue is as necessary as ours.

(Use "high school graduation" as your easy metaphor for planetary or individual death in this case. Imagine everyone you ever knew and didn't know and wish you could have known disappearing as this part of life ends forever, and yes it's sad, but then there's jobs or college or "real life" to look forward to, until such a point as you eventually realize that, A, there was nothing to worry about, and, B, death wasn't really "death" the way we usually think about it, but so much ado about a simple, ordinary transition that has been done before and will be done again. And some people are hugging and kissing and crying and wanting to shuffle around between the beds and share important information, and that's fine, but it's not frightfully essential in the way we tend to imagine. In this case, the k'arash are the ones who constantly reincarnate as high school freshman, never believing there's a bigger world out there, but perennially vested with the skills of being the metaphorical football captain or head of the student council or some other thing that can seem really important inside high school, but aren't as important to you later; in fact, things that may be viewed as stupid or pointless or fundamentally flawed.)

Visualize a fly contentedly consuming a fresh piece of shit. He's gross, and you don't want his job, but in a way, you're glad he's there, and you're glad that all the microphages are there, because without them, shit would just sit there forever. By being digested, it can become better things, like in twenty years a part of the harvest or of Beethoven's brain or some part of a really hot chick. It's rather that way with the Jews taking a planet; you don't want their job, but you're damned glad they're there, even though we, you and I, probably feel the same aversion to it from this perspective--and are equally happy that we don't have that job--although, as in every similar cycle, some people will want that job, and will aspire to become lords of the shit, and we're glad that, somewhere out there, there are such souls who without which we would not be able to do what we're able to do.

There's a European-targeted aspect of Christianity that's applicable there; something about camels and eyes of needles and rich men. Part of the illusion, the reason the metaphor can ring true, is that the choice to revel in the ultimate goal of material supremacy, to be the group that always wins without being troubled by ineffectual otherworldly dream-concepts like honor or decency, is how, and why, most "higher concepts" harm material progress, as many a civilization has discovered. And it's a satisfying reward, just like plenty of fresh shit to the hungry fly, and it's not inherently troubling to the metaphorical fly who really can't conceive of anything better anyway. The k'arash want their lot, and they're happy in it, and someone has to clean all this shit up, and it's moral and proper that it be someone who actually likes it and thinks it's paradise and there's nothing better possible. While you may seek some form of transcendental union, they don't believe in it, so you're both getting what you want. It's a beautiful system, where everyone can choose their path, and they get their own way constantly, and the people who are constantly going to hell don't think it's hell and know, without a doubt, that there is no such thing as some loopy "paradise" anyway.

Now that's what I call a clean equation for reality, if I do say so myself. It just sucks--just really, really sucks--to shop for what you want to be; to experience pieces of possibility and decide what you want to pursue. And, in so doing, to become quite familiar with material necessities, material breakdown, material triumph, and the other facets of this kind of place. To many people, these are exciting invitations of the rewards you can have or the suffering you can gain the power to inflict on others, while to other people, they're an intimate demonstration of why this is incomplete and imperfect and you should move on. I hate it, too, but the familiarity you gain by being trapped here, forced to put aside memory and experience it as-new, permits you to understand and choose in a way in which you wouldn't be able to while burdened/blessed with everything you've ever done. So many pieces of standard European philosophy, particularly now seen through a Christian lens, are wound up in there with better resolutions; you have free will to do terrible things not because there's an old man in the sky who knows who you are but wants to watch the show anyway, but because you are building who you are and developing either as something "higher" or as an endless digestive agent that can move on frightened chrysali from one place to the other, all the while thinking you're achieving ultimate happiness by killing everything on this or that planet. Again, think of a physical bully toughest ever, or the rich kid psychological bully, who is doomed--as some might see it, or blessed--as others might see it--to rule over middle school forever.

There's a peak moment of possibility, there, for imaginary communication between those who share the same plight. When the last few true Chinese realize that things have been and/or are being destroyed, and check historical or scientific records to figure out what happened and how, some of them will figure out what it was that did it, and their contemplation of the horror of their own demise--of the weakness or the stupidity of those who were taught to focus elsewhere, and of the demented decision to destroy the future by tolerating or coddling the irreclaimable diseased--their awareness, like ours, of the colossal quantity of lies and dishonor and other somehow wrong-feeling yet really successful in market competition in the ways in which their people were destroyed--will bring them, whether they know it or not, into companionship with many other peoples who are, as of 2018, already gone or going. And it is in those moments of undeclared, ignorant sharing that we may experience a commonality with those who have come before, as indeed a parasite may die starving now that its hosts are all finally worn out, and in so doing participate in the versal commonality of all those parasites, and hosts, across the entire verse who have done the same. It is in a way a blessing to be part of helping growing things move on to a new place; it is a mixture of sadness and triumph when a beautiful piece of music ends, despite all that could be done with it if it could but persist forever. It is an acceptable wrongness, a rightness, that, upon deep thought, we are incapable of producing that death; that ending; that transfer from one song to another, whereas the destroyers desire it and are built for it and we are thankful that something so foul exists to burn away the end of what we cannot.

Seeing these awful things do their work firsthand is off-putting, to say the least. When the tide wears away a seaside palace, it's sad, whether you see it in stop-motion film or look back on a lifetime of seventy years observing the palace late each summer and wondering what it means that people don't appreciate beauty or history or whatever you think that dying palace represents. Because the k'arash appear human, both in the sense of having cross-bred well and having what seems like a consciousness so very like our own, it can, it does, seem more offensive, watching them destroy a group of people, or a civilization, or all groups of people or all civilizations, over the course of a few thousand years. We don't want a sudden comet to destroy life on Earth, or just "a major country" but we don't approach the possibility with the same offense we might take when Jews orchestrate a few wars or governmental policies to destroy "a major country." The same effect holds on a smaller scale: if a tornado destroys a trailer park and leaves 50 families homeless, we react to it differently than if a few Jewish politicians use some ridiculous farce of a regulation to move all of a corporation's hiring to the population of a nearby more urbanized area and thereby leave 50 families homeless. The regulation and the tornado achieved the same overall effect on the lives of the eliminated workers and their children, but we're offended by the conscious agents of reality, whereas not at all offended by the tornado.

Yet, why? The ocean's tide has no more or less a concept of morality than the Destroyers; being upset that the Jews have intermixed with choice traits, then destroyed, some new group of people from the inside, while pretending to be faithful members all the while, is as fruitless, as deficient, as wrong, as to be mad at the ocean for wearing away the shoreline. "Oh, you stupid ocean!" cries the sculptor of the buttress, as it finally gives way, throwing an angry kick at the oblivious water. Oceans aside, plenty other facets of this place move matter and kill people, even their own design--the human, and his works here, aren't meant to last materially forever, and reality isn't some kind of game show where when you finally achieve material fixative, you win; growing, even its apparently ugliest forms, has a purpose, and part of that purpose is understanding and accepting growing. Which, by all means, includes learning about the how and why of growth and decay, and again, build a tidewall as you need, or trap the ocean in a colossal plastic bag and try to protect everything else from it forever; that's its own kind of learning experience; I am not by any means saying, "Just go along with dying." I am not by any means saying that you should or must passively accept, or embrace, the experience; that you should let them lie and pretend and do what we would consider abasing ourselves, but that they consider mana; that it is somehow wise or noble to pretend that it doesn't exist and laugh mockingly at the idea that the Destroyers are actually destroying and that they are not just like us.

Really. Tornadoes. Being mad at the Jews is like being mad at heart attacks or lightning strikes or earthquakes or other natural phenomenon that kill things pursuant to either some plan we don't understand or some random clusterfuck that we also don't understand, and perhaps it's our sadness that they're not like us that makes us feel more alone and more offended. Do we, universalists, feel morally offended when lightning strikes some person at an inopportune time? No? Because it's just lightning, for fuck's sake; its ability to know what it's doing is outside the scope of the inquiry. And scientifically, if you create a planet sized petri dish and add Jews on one side and Aryans on another, what will happen is as inevitable, as predictable, as if you put ants and sugar in the same petri dish. Fine, be mad at them if you want--evaluating conscious heart attacks on a civilizational scale is something that can be done, and maybe should be done--but the ability to perceive reality as "not everything is like me" is an important step. Even if it can talk to you, it's not "human" in the way you define yourself as "human."

(Lots of great learning opportunities here; not only to not get upset at a talking thing that isn't human like you are as though it is like you, but to be able to be at least a tiny bit upset at the nature of these created realities and the ways they use seemingly uncontrolled or uncontrollable events to affect you. You don't need to get mad at the tornado, or love and accept the Jew who raised your real estate taxes again, but being aware of the ways in which material reality, and components of it, may be designed, is instructive. Don't be afraid to see more patterns.)

There may well come a time when terminator thoughtbots patrol the skies globally, giving our brains helpful microshocks whenever we start to think the thought, "Maybe the massacring in Palestine for the past 50 years is a characteristic of this organism." Maybe it's already here; less literally, it is. And believing that it's not, that you're just a free-thinker who won't fall victim to a prejudice that was actually postjudice inspired by decades of dead Arab kids, is a lamentable intellectual failure, but don't worry, you'll get as many tries as you need, almost like--exactly like, in fact--you were born to die.

Again, a marvel at their technique--the most racist, prejudiced group ever, understood by all peoples to be this way for millennia, and the most heartless killers of animal and man, and the filthiest liars imaginable, somehow became believed by dullards to actually be paladins of the opposite, even as they kill lots and lots of brown-skinned people for existing. Supposedly, the antiwar left wants to stop megacorps from murdering brown-skinned people en masse, but actually it was all just a ruse to do what the Jews said and massacre whenever they're told "sic." You gotta admit, they're so stupid that it almost seems like they deserve what's coming to them.

"Oh, you stupid ocean!" Lol, keep trying to kick those waves back.

Sad to say, in a way, that the material component of the JP is to recognize that this isn't a force of nature you can resist. Losing to it, honestly, and while possessing the desire to not lose, is part of the service they offer. That's why it's an endless succession of losses and a great march toward the end of this place. It's pleasant news to know that this is their paradise, torturing and killing and dominating in less complex realities, and that they'll always believe that more complex ("higher"?) realities are fantasies we use to assuage ourselves from endlessly losing here. And when you're somewhere better, you won't take any particular pleasure in the janitorial staff being incredibly ignorant and poorly compensated compared to you; indeed, it's better that they're sure they're the greatest and coolest for rearranging all that trash, because it makes them do their jobs better.

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Better There than There

In Microaggression, this one alluded briefly to notions of this superiority or top form of civilization or technology, and it seems to be behoven from the subject itself--though perhaps childishly vindictive--to point out that the ramshackle human-created environment available here is in no way advanced or refined or superior, or at the top of its class, compared to, say, other civilization.

Terran Barians' venal "justice" system may be less rife with open bribery than that of the, say, DR of Congo, but it is nonetheless terrible and unfair; it may be more fair in comparison when it's a 1790 version of a bunch of literate landholding jurors trying a peer wealthy landholder for whether or not he clubbed his butler based on their perception of facts alone, eschewing their personal feelings about him, if any, and trying to satisfy some internal sense of honor to actually figure out what happened.

Nonetheless, like you don't want to have open heart surgery performed on you by unlicensed street doctors in Chelyabinsk Oblast who've been eyeing your wallet and ask if you're sure no one knows where you're visiting today, you don't want to interact with the "white" justice system on Terra if you can at all help it. Despairing vindictiveness is, at the least, rather ripe here, even if not understood by its hosts.

Similarly, the broken and wretched morass of foreshortened, stagnating technology here is an embarrassment; to call it "remedial" would be an excessively high compliment, the same of which could be said about the quaint habit of intersections for wheeled vehicles. Terrans are quite proud of their ever-crumbling roadways and speculations of limited intrasolar spaceflight, and, in their dumb isolation, can pretend that no one else has ever been as smart as they. For illustration, imagine a galaxy or a verse filled with X billion planets that can "potentially" harbor life, and then imagine those places developing without thousands of years of intellectual voids here and there where people were dancing around praising sky-man, or diversity, or whatever, and instead inventing things at a rate comparable to Earthly humans just trying to find something they can sell without involving sky-man or diversity. Imagine the X-hundred trillion dollars in real estate or capital not being devoted to sky-man or diversity, and just being used to pay scientists to figure stuff out. That's your competition. People who have pretty flawless neurocomputers integrated with their flying personal transports that are powered by atmosphere, so next decade's grocery basics are lined up while you get driven somewhere except the dudes in the backroom of the grocery store are not special disabled hires who lose everything but stock robots who never make mistakes. Or, more importantly, a standard populace of people who, two minutes into about any Terran politician's speech, chuckles mildly and reacts toward him sort of like Terrans would react toward some dude screaming pantless about the end of the world in Times Square. No one watching sportsball or crime drama and you start to realize what a madhouse this looks like compared to a sane place. Basic shit like that to easily embarrass Terra; to give a shadow of despairing doubt or promising hope that it really isn't so great, here; that this result we see now isn't anything like an apex.

(And good grief, not to demean athletics or the desire to watch them being performed, but the way and reason people do that here is a complex of such a hideous stew of personal problems that, as an example for here, it serves.)

Regarding racism, and accomplishments appurtenant thereto which can assist in making judgments, it is presumed to be an insult to say "Group A is X quantity intelligent; Group B is merely X-1 intelligent." In the scale of all total possibilities, proper perspective demonstrates that, as to Terra and Terrans, if X is relatively minuscule enough, it isn't particularly offensive as to Group B to draw such conclusions. It may be offensive to all Groups in the study, but not particularly as to Group B. And that's something that Terrans, in their combination of possessing rather monumental ignorance and arrogance, tend not to want to see--that their traditions, inventions, and so forth, are not all that impressive. Being proud of what "white" people have accomplished is rather like being pleased that you're at the head of the class for retarded kids. So it might be offensive to everyone created from this planet, but not to "black" people in particular, to say "Golly gee, blacks sure can't do math at northeast Asian levels." Offensive to blacks within the confines of this low-ability group, but more realistically, there's very little difference. To put it bluntly, we're all so daft that it's really splitting hairs to say that one group of people on this rock is "smarter than" another.

Of course, one group is rather massively ahead of others, on this rock, and within those confines, gradations can be made, just like a good baker can make exemplary cakes and cakes that are merely good, identifiable by someone who eats their baked stuff regularly. But our ability to take universally vast offense at the thought that some of us might not be as smart as others of us is pitiful; it's like being proud that you won a pecking fight with the roosters who have already been proven to be subordinate to the clique of weakly roosters who weren't strong enough to be in the dominant clique. Gaining a proper perspective on our "racism," as well as our "universalism" or "anti-racism," means swallowing such bitter pills as realizing that the difference is really not that significant at all; indeed, that it may be properly ignored as an irrelevant, excessive detail in some circumstances.

Which is not to say that, when trapped here, it's unimportant to adjust your behavior in accordance with the local gradations, just like when you're in a jungle it's better to walk with a certain level of wariness when a llama is in the area, versus a certain level of wariness when a tiger is in the area. It's naive, it's stupid, to pretend that you should make the exact same set of calculations, assumptions, predictions, whatever, about the behavior of the llama versus the tiger, the caution you should take, et cetera. You are likely not going to, though, play a challenging game of chess with either organism, even if the tiger can figure out to roll the ball through a round hole in the playpen in which you trap it, while the llama just keeps nosing the ball against the triangle-shaped hole, completely not getting it.

Sunday, April 15, 2018


The role unseen arrogance and the fantasy of redoing it plays in externalizing troubles.

Birth rates. Interfering in a civilization's birth rates and child-bearing habits is a major intrusion and, of course, offensive. Let's say that African non-whites have X percentage more stillbirths due to what whites would consider inadequate prenatal care. Do the whites, being do-gooders, amass funds unwillingly taken from taxpayers, or willingly taken from donors, or a combination of willingly/unwillingly taken from evil legislators who themselves took it out of tax slush funds, and pay white doctors who couldn't handle the hours of a real job, or who wanted to pad their resumes, to commit various prenatal acts on pregnant women in the region, and to advise someone else who's gotten western money as to how to adjust public policy to favor expectant mothers and expectant expectant mothers and so on?

An important part of all of this is the reliability of the gratitude expressed to you by people to whom you've given "jobs" (money) or other gifts for helping you. Many white racists genuinely feel that, because the twenty-four native adults who've worked on the project thanked them and said that their nation and people were grateful for the assistance and how much it has helped, those positive sentiments are not only true and unvarnished as to the individual, but to the society at large. Reminds me of this one boss I used to have, who would make a habit of telling people off in traffic or at the grocery store or at other similar random locations. He expressed awareness that his behavior might be viewed as inappropriate, but was reassured in the accuracy and good sense of all of his incidents of interrupting people at the store to tell them they didn't know how to park, or drive, or push their cart properly, and so forth, because one of his temporary workers would listen sympathetically to him while on the clock and then agree that the other person was absolutely a danger to society and he was so right to yell at that lady or whatever.

Now empowered in his idiocy, the dude felt completely in the right. He was right to make aggressive gestures to that other person who switched lanes at the wrong time, or who had "cut him off" by pulling into his lane 300 feet ahead of him, et cetera. And he had proof that he was right, because said temp employee would tell him what an amazing civic duty he'd done and how good it was for our city that there were still people like him around, and didn't he have more hours available for her next week? And in these conversations he did usually find those hours, and now, years later, I wonder if the man reflected on the relationship and what it meant, but I suspect not; I suspect he's telling a new generation of hourly employees his stories and being praised for whatever dumbass thing he'd done that day.

Now, maybe all the people he yelled at were really great, or genuinely evil, and maybe my perception that slightly over half the time he was the one who'd done the wrong thing or he shouldn't have been complaining about barking noises when in the animal companion comfort room at the golf club (and he didn't even have his own dog; why the hell was he in there to begin with? no one knows), or maybe he was right every single time. What matters for that situation is more his willingness to accept as true, unbiased advice people whom he paid; whose livelihood depended, to some or all degrees, on him feeling validated in their validation of him. And it was just insane that he felt reassured by his employees telling him he'd been right when he and that man at the grocery store argued over who'd upset the front kiosk with the magazines, or whatever it was. White people since the twentieth century are like that; do-gooders with this insane level of arrogant, self-fulfilling noblesse oblige, and being told by the Jews, "Go spend your civilization's capital giving guns and apples to Zaire" exacerbated this natural stupidity very well.

Back to the larger point: so, the white racists spring into action reforming the African society in their own image. They improve sanitation for expectant mothers and expectant expectant mothers; they adjust the policies of sexual relationships through government classes that no one attends, or intrusive advertising; they demean the old ways and the elders who have longer participated in the old ways; they buy cleaning chemicals and drugs from white companies with said tax slush funds and distribute said goods around the nation and encourage their use; et cetera.

As a result of these policies, stillbirths drop and for only $40 million white people get to be vicariously proud at how many black people they've "saved." Even at just this level, that's an offensive, racist action, for all the offense it gives to the non-whites' prior culture and traditions, but look deeper.

White people are meanwhile, at home, dealing with antibiotic resistant strains of disease that they've created by, according to their own wise men, overusing hand sanitizer every time they see someone across the street. And by inundating an African society, say, with foreign modes of behavior, they may just be fucking things up a little bit, or they may be interfering with the biosphere in a cataclysmic way that they wouldn't figure out until it was too late.

Related to children, the mandatory imposition of Christian-derived notions of modern two-person lifelong mating pairs, or no-fault divorce, or child support, or any of that shit, has had incalculable effects on western society. Not just on child-bearing, but child-raising and the "after effects" of the child's life and its relationships with its elders and the elders' relationships with each other and the rest of society. Not only birth rates, but the whole rest of the stuff, can and will be affected by what seems to whites an obvious, completely giving and harmless benefit.

Or we could give the natives food, filling their homes with western style supermarket fare, and awww, we just saved five thousand kiddies from starvation. The long term effects on the nation's agriculture and capacity to feed itself are negatively profound, particularly if the western nation(s) becomes unable to keep making those gifts, more so if all new planting and clearing methods rely upon machinery "gifted" by the west. Because it would be morally irresponsible to allow another people to produce food in their way rather than our way, with the telling assumption from the westerner that he will always be able to superfeed the superworld, so building the reliance of other countries upon your own things isn't just stupid and dangerous, it's pitifully arrogant and a bald-faced attempt to reassure yourself that you always can provide for others, ergo you can always provide for yourself, ergo there's no need to be scared anymore. And using others' lives, even violent muds, to reassure yourself that way, is unequivocally wrong, even if you approach this issue from the universalist perspective the rabbi told you to believe in.

Interfering in a "colored" society's medicine is similar to interfering in its food, perhaps more dramatically so. Drug dealers using selfless charity, giving away product, and building reliance in the kids at the local middle school is a wise future-profits and customer-retention move, similar to "white" do-gooding, and is more literally recognizable in the charitable aspect of "creating markets" where whites pretend that founding a colored middle class in some new place, all set up to keep using white brands, is a selfless act. Indeed, I may be a terrible racist for understanding that blacks generally can't function well in white societies in ways that whites would consider "well," but it's a racism far more benign than the people who pretend that everyone can excel pursuant to their preferred models of success, and that white help in doing so is either selfless or uplifting.

Medicinal examples: by curing some disease using what are, to us, outdated antibiotics, we interfere, godlike, in a different environment, and inspire the evolution of whatever will evolve as a result of our interference. And we don't know what that is, including who will not ever be born as a result of us changing the otherwise-natural death rate of wherever we've interfered with. We assume that, because of our faith in our religion, we know everything is random, so there are no consequences explicably possible due to our our interference, but in actuality we have no way of knowing what will spring up in the voids we've created, whether social or biological. Ergo, whether one believes in randomness or things being built with some form of planned development, we've spoiled the data set, producing a violation of either. Evolution is no longer "random" or "natural selection" but "white mindset." Our lofty assumptions that we have created a form of living superiority or perfection leaves us as unable to prepare for problems we might cause elsewhere as we are for those we create in our own homes. And in our short-sighted arrogance, we're so dazzled with ourselves for potentially having maintained global military supremacy for a thousand years that we're not capable of foreseeing that lack of supremacy.

Racism as Racism

If we can contemplate the above without becoming afraid that this isn't really as good as it gets and scuttling the discussion, we can become a bit more broad in our analysis. Everyone possessing sight is racist, of course, simply because they can tell a difference; even if they pretend someone else is behind the scenes with a top hat and a twirly mustache personally producing differences in what we consider intellectual output, rather than genes having anything to do with it, we can tell there is a difference in racial composition and product and behavior, and are of course racist for admitting that it seems like a problem or attempting in any way to address the problem. Increasingly fatuous rationalizations for extra racisms we can't see, such as blindly committed microaggressions, represent the inner qualms of anti-racists'/racists' fundamental recognition of this sin they've committed, which they can tell will never go away.

Our perception, also, that whites are so great, even in a mean or unfair way, is similarly racist by definition; the most well-meaning attempt by some shirt-rending philanthropist, however blind, to foist white culture on, say, "black" culture (it is so annoying being on this planet where the people say "black" instead of "brown" to refer to the damn local Balrins, or of course "whites" instead of something like "pinks" for the fratzing local Barians, like they don't have eyes and can't tell what color is), is of course terribly racist, and as aforementioned, racist in a way that's catastrophically harmful. Getting mad at the black kids on your street who keep breaking into your car, and maybe letting them each have a turn with the tire iron, might be racist, but it's nothing compared to funding a military dictatorship that pretends to hold elections in your preferred style while killing thirty thousand tribal enemies using gas and guns you provided them. And the wishful faux-stupidity of western liberals is stupid, and funny, and hypocritical, so it gets really tempting for people who simply prefer being around their own kind to critique liberalism as a disease of altruism, which conceals the true brutality of all the "giving" that is going on.

Ultimately, or at least somewhere way up the list, we come to see that the would-be helpful racism of the past thousand years, Christian and otherwise, bears more of a relationship to self-affirmation than to other-recognition. Not only because whites get to feel superior by giving their terrible stuff away, but because, by giving that stuff away and trying to teach other humans to rely on it, they're not just feeling superior, but feeling less afraid, because proving that other people need parliaments and supermarket packaged food is a layer of defense for the "whites'" own use of those things. When, say, Jimmy Carter meddles with some governments in Africa to exterminate some kind of worm that causes bad effects when mixed with humans, he's not just showing how great he is by saving people, but reaffirming to himself that him and his offspring are in an operable model...even though Africans have been surviving alongside African bacteria and larger wildlife for many thousands of years before various do-gooders tried to rearrange the formerly thriving ecosystem.

The fantasy of "redoing it" plays its part, too. If whites think their history followed certain forms in line with certain advances, their play in Africa can be thought by them to be mimicking their own history; "living it" again by using blacks as their puppets, where their recreation of "first liberal democracy" and "first women's rights" et cetera are viewed by them as a fun larping of their own history, where the game is viciously defended against those who might subvert it by allowing the culture to develop on its own.

It's quite difficult, especially if you're enmeshed in or were raised in a western culture, to contemplate one thousand years not being forever or life being possible, or more fulfilling, without all the Big Box Store crap, because who wouldn't want to be able to microwave frozen onion rings at 3AM? And maybe our ability to do that affects our assumptions about, and ability to complete, other facets of life, and the Balrins have really dodged some bullets by developing in a slower, safer way. We're not being Luddites here, nor advocating for some anti-technology position, nor stupidly claiming that consumerism or modern medicine are inherently bad things always; rather, we're pointing out that foisting those advances (particularly in the plagued way in which "whites" made them here) on groups who haven't made them themselves is harmful, even though yes indeed they will want the gifts if you're handing them out. Part of the growth that is supposed to occur along with being able to develop those gifts is the wisdom to not just give them away randomly, a habit which Terran Barians unfortunately never learned (probably with help, but that's not the point here).

It's recently viewed as a terrible thing to not fetishize weakness, ergo when we force Africa to bear the burden of another 100 million people who wouldn't have lived without white medicine, we change the entire development of the people. Those individuals who would have survived, thrived, or even been born at all, as opposed to not, in communities which were not interfered with, bore a contribution, and a legacy, that we've stolen if we want to make it possible for those who can't naturally survive early parasite infections to survive at the expense of those who could've. If we had a different capability for understanding the entire system and our effects on it, this would be a different discussion, but we don't have that capability, so we're having instead the simpler discussion: namely, that maybe an improvement of that human group was contingent on the naturally occurring factors which affected it, and a bunch of whites massacring various microscopic organisms doesn't just save the sick to be supported by white medicine, but it minimizes the growth of the healthy, which might include maintaining traits that aren't there in browns or pinks yet, and would prove vital to surviving some new planetary crisis in a few thousand more years. It would be a different level of discussion if whites were doing other kinds of planning too, or at least thinking about the whole concept, but no, the pigheaded stupidity of interfering in various ecosystems, including the entire Terran planetary one, is the only thing they can think of, besides of course calling themselves heroes who care while making money.

And here we come again to the double-edged sword, as it were, of "racism," that being that being able to be actually racist--to concede that blacks just aren't as smart in some ways, and might not be for a thousand years--is the only way to actually critique whites, or any other race. Because you can't truly figure out blacks if you fail to understand whites, or are unable to fathom the part whites have played in all this. And that's a dangerous path to tread, because it leads to the question of material supremacy, and the Jewish ability to kill everyone else, coupled with the obviously materially self harmful Jewish desire to kill everything including themselves, and that gets extraterrestrial and spiritual in icky, scary ways, and it could be millennia before more and more people are willing to consider that parasites are knowingly committing suicide by killing necessary hosts, and how that couldn't possibly be a desire produced by the doctrine of survival of the fittest, and thus just what more expansive doctrines are and what was happening here anyway.

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

This Overpowering Racism

What a troubling illusion, this, where the spellbound pink-skinned idiots have followed the most racially discriminatory of all groups into a maze where they cut out their own eyes to avoid witnessing the sin of being inside a maze. The racism of most Europeoids ("whites"?) is as quixotic as it is venerable, having seated itself so fully in the species that it is almost the most characteristic feature of the world which screams that it has no character. We might, in paid-attendance-at-a-convention style, characterize this as "be like me racism," which, if not for the insulting necessities of the implied conclusions enabling one to understand what it means, be a popular stylistic retelling of some imaginary 19th century racism.

The Europeoid seems obsessed with the idea that everyone else can be like him; indeed, that everyone else is secretly like him inside, as though every other human group is a Europeoid at heart and should, nay, must, express this in a trackable way. It is this slovenly desire, perhaps once recognized as inchoate by the authors of the Torah, which made the Europeoid most useful, perhaps in the manner of the only possible tool that could be utilized, in creating the hellish now where to be joyful means to not have to participate in what is normal behavior. So glad when you don't have to work, so happy when you don't have to go through forcible education again; so satisfied when this is your day off; so satisfied when you're out of the rat race don't have to do that anymore don't have to keep going to her boring parties searching for "the right person" any of that bullshit you know it's so fake anyway. And yet, in our constant search to not do our own things, we are violently offended at the thought that others cannot, or will not, pursue these same opportunities. It's such a goddamn relief when the working day is done and girls just want to have fun and no not tonight I'm just going to get reacquainted with the TV, know what I mean, and watch skits of people doing and talking about normal stuff that I'm so glad not to be part of myself.

And this is triumph. It is so incredibly racist how people don't want to make Africa a place loaded with SSRIs and lifelong worry about finances. We've got this species that was having just a fine society, eating and reproducing and having wars and parties and sleeping until noon every day if it felt like it, and we must offload our burdens onto them because their inability to labor three extra hours a week to fund a team of men in suits to talk about optimizing educational policy is way better than three extra hours a week of just being with your friends and family free of worries. And that's really racism, when you think about it; desire to destroy environments and reshape them to be like what white people have created. There are some Asians who can see that and can willingly copy it, can go out of their way to copy it, to achieve it, bully for you, here's a pass for 1% of you to live reclining and the rest to labor from cradle to grave in the hopes that you might earn your own pass. You won't get some weird symptom and then die a few days later, oh no, you're privileged to know all the details and linger suffering in a building that smells like burning sanitary chemicals and death for 7 years, and only then, after everything you tried so hard to hoard is eaten up, can you finally punch out, it's called civilization baby.

That's the real crux of racism, the white failing; the white need for everyone to feel these same things too, everyone wants these things, I know you're jealous of me, now take out a mortgage and there is no such thing as a family farm it all belongs to the state pay up you don't want bandits, do you? Well pay up or we'll physically remove you and auction it all. You are privileged to live here, privileged that we allow you to rent a little space on this planet, and you love it so much you must bring every other species that can learn to imitate your guttural moans to join you in floating on this balloon of paradise.

Interesting, after all this distortion, to see the enhanced racism of liberals as to conservatives from 1918 to 2018. The conservative would say, "Let's just leave things like they are," and be called racist for not wanting to give all the terrible gifts of white society to everyone else, while the liberal takes it for granted that everyone else wants and needs those benefits; that what everyone else has is refuse and it has to be destroyed and replaced by white society. Which is really the more "racist" attitude. Decades of flaunting and coaxing have convinced sellout spokespeople from other regions and races that, on behalf of their people, non-whites should destroy all their old stuff and replace it with white stuff. The entire modern conception of (bad) racism is based around this awful, hateful, ignorant concept.

It's funny looking back and imagining what the world would be like if the original opponents to integrationism had adopted the term "anti-racist" to describe themselves and "racist" to describe the, well, racists, who wanted to mash the world together under a singular consumer-hell administration. They would still teach racism in schools, and they could more honestly call it that, and dissident news articles would talk about how racists tempted a carjacker and anti-racists wanted to give him and his friends a ticket back to Africa. It's like white people are so proud of their steamboats that they can't merely chug around in them intrinsically proud, but they have to import people to marvel at what they've done; like they're secretly nervous about whether or not their skyscrapers with central heating and air conditioning really are better than mud-brick huts without running water, so they want to force everyone to live in them, have been their inventors, et cetera, maybe it's just a way of trying to share responsibility for your own individual fuck-ups. Of course we all know that central heating is better than unventilated mud-brick, but maybe that's only because we're all victims of the same short-sightedness. It is a recurrent trait, an immensely deep arrogance, to look at the mud brick and declare it definitely worse than the skyscraper, and therefore these people need more economic opportunities so this is called a mortgage Mr. Jones.

There seems to be some degree of objective superiority in white culture which can be compared favorably to non-white, such that whites' centurial desire to force their culture on all other verbalizing species finds explanation. One might think that, for example, infant mortality rates or incidents of random violent crime within a society would seem to indicate objective superiority. But not so--those "objective" standards would be oh-so-arrogantly employing white presumptions. Posit 100 infant births, and some ancient "native" culture has 60 survivals and some modern "white" culture has 98 survivals. Seems like whites have won. But then, presume that, of the total crop of infants, the ancient nonwhite culture produces 57 adult individuals who die feeling existentially fulfilled, and the modern white culture produces zero such, or let's be overly generous and say 10. The majority of those healthy and successful white births result in adult individuals who primarily live and die feeling confused, afraid, like they haven't accomplished what they wanted, like they didn't know what it was all about, and secretly feeling that their offspring will come to know the same. The ratio of "good lives" is then in favor of nonwhites, numerically represented as 57:10, and this would apply even if the white survival rate raised to 100 out of 100 births and the "native" one dropped to 1 out of 100. Whites' views about their own objective success, which must be made available to all cultures and all peoples, are a cursed poison dragging down everyone else to the white level (or trying to).

How terrible it would be if whites wouldn't offer to raise those nonwhite survival rates and provide public housing, and the ability to (gasp!) vote in white-style elections for public leaders who might increase their allotment of impersonal electronic currency that could purchase them television subscriptions and superstore food to their hearts' content! Seriously, these are the things that white people worry about--a lack of access to "our" culture is such a waste of a life! And meanwhile, they ignorantly fetishize the culture of maybe 1/20 of adults randomly being attacked and killed by a lion and 4/20 going hungry during bad years, because the 15/20 who do make it have a culture and a people that result in enjoyable, fulfilling lives, as compared to the 19/20 (being way too generous) of whites who live and die in existential despair, trying desperately to convince themselves they believe in an all-powerful rabbi whose promise of "you'll finally understand all this shit and it will be worth it because we'll reward you somewhere you can't see" is the best thing they have to live for.

Maybe whites are right, and you might as well build skyscrapers and educated democracies and all that other shit, or maybe they're wrong and the human investment necessary to create and maintain such an edifice is something that the colored races decided not to do, and now whites are forcing the white choice onto everyone, so everyone can accept the consequences.

This compulsion to stupidly make everything like home makes Terran "whites" the perfect tool for the k'arash, the digestive agents of planets in this galaxy, leading to the question of if "the Jews" could've had any kind of impact whatsoever except if they could've clung to whites. All the stupid sweet nothings whispered in whites' ears can and have produced a global gulag which threatens to eventually absorb every species that can verbalize, whereas without the availability of the white option, a smooth-talking Jew could learn some tribe's dialect and rise to individual, but never global, prominence. Jews could not convince whites to bring the benefits of civilization to, say, panthera tigris, though God knows they'd love to make and sell the resulting porn on the internet, but to homo africanus, they can succeed in that task, and suddenly African "nation-states" are "in debt" to a world bank and whites are either furious that someone has exploited that nation, or outraged that anyone else could be so stupid as to think prosperity as we think of it would result, yet still, amazingly, proud of the ethnic group that invented so many cool things. When President Temporarius buys a fleet of 50 Mercedes autos instead of funding the orphanage job training center, they're surprised, though they wouldn't be when some tiger dressed up like a president spends the whole budget on cuts of meat that he can't even finish gorging on before they rot, because, duh, he's a fricking tiger. Stupidity, yes, but not quite as embarrassing, as subtle, as the people who say, "Well yeah, some idiots thought they'd make a tiger play citizen but one of my kind once invented the suspension bridge so you know we're smart."

"Liberal" racism is certainly a longstanding, embarrassing tragedy. One wonders if, hundreds of years after these hundreds of years of it, its survivors might admit that it was racist to expect everyone else to be like whites, to dismiss as "under" developed the habitats of people who didn't develop much in the way of what whites would consider architecture, or to fight this racism with 1/1000 the ferocity that they fought the idea that everyone wasn't like whites. But a new embarrassment raises its slimy head now in the form of the "alt right," where people try to explain that, despite the utter takeover of the planet by Jews while whites were constantly being warned about it, the slaves who still remain are nonetheless smart and wise and will reclaim whatever mastery they tell themselves they once had.

Seeing the Fed

It is a painful and disconcerting situation, particularly given the forcibly dogmatic perspectives of western education, how any kind of intelligent, impassioned struggle must lead one toward the racism which dare not speaketh its name. Any issue, whether of the most selfish or the most selfless motives, or anything in-between, however mundane or dramatic, leads one to the conclusion that a very small genetic cabal is serving as a parasite upon the rest of the species of humanity, or the alternative viewpoint, which is this discussion is so stupid and/or disgusting and/or scary that I'm not even going to have it with you. And the inevitable conclusion of that dilemma, far less often traveled, is the inferior survivability of the host species, which has clearly been outmatched.

It is indeed unfortunate, for the victims of modern pedagogy, to realize that it was not Christian traditions, somewhat newcomers to the tale, but at least a hint of legitimacy, in the reasoning for the thousands of years of conflict between Jews and other Terrans. Pick an issue, and the troubling conclusions must be either reached or ignored.

Warfare. The creations and movements of the great central banks that demanded and fostered and profited immensely from the wars of the twentieth century--this can be tracked even more easily than those of prior centuries--were specifically, avowedly Jewish. The tens of millions of publicly acknowledged non-Jewish victims should, if nothing else, raise this question. And yet, how socially inappropriate it is to notice that the finance ministers and bank chairmen who demanded the slaughter were all members of a worldwide extreme genetic minority which could use arcane demands to motivate members of many other genetic majorities to butcher one another. If not even this, the scathing of those who notice or discuss this apparently confusing fact should be like a thousand trumpets blowing inside a small room as to the veracity and importance of recognizing this source of slaughter. It is such a childish conclusion that it has made its own trope: a small group of rich and powerful men, all of a certain type of man, makes mountains of gold for tricking others into killing each other, then people like them punish anyone else who notices it. And yet, here we are.

Minority rights ("minority" in any given area and/or era, or it never works). Warfare. Animals being tortured pointlessly or just for fun. Propertization of women. Child abuse.

It is disconcerting to the victim of western pedagogy, with its lingering traditions of intellectual inquiry not yet fully stamped out, to realize how every verifiable, rational, tangible problem, holds the same relationship as the ones in the early twentieth century (and older, but there's no need to focus on that for people who think that a couple hundred years is a long time). Any resistance to a military-industrial complex, even if not thought out to its origins in the Israel Founding War, can be traced to the same or successor central bank(s) which spawned the earlier horrors. And the same genetic seeming aberration and coincidence persists, even into the 21st century, of this small group of immensely powerful people of a certain ethnicity making other people starve or go broke or fight each other. America's last "more formal" (though, against the supposed rules of the American Constitution, "undeclared") war, the invasion of Iraq, could have its origins traced expressly to the central American bank, "the Fed," that had ordered it and paid for it, and the same genetic pattern as "World War I" held, right down to the ethnicity of people warning legislators how to vote or else. The disgusting corruptions that are U.S. "elections," and their resulting influence in the rest of the misplaced world, can be traced to the gamesmanship of the bloated death-pigs at the U.S. Federal Reserve, among other places. The Fed is so incredibly easy to see, every liberal and conservative cause leading back to the wrongness and disgustingness of the Fed. Though often redirected to vague "capitalists" or "Wall Street," people continue to be able to differentiate between some local capitalist who opened a hardware store, and the Fed.

Confused ethnic majorities, called "minorities" in the U.S. due to the finagling of limited demographical data, wandering the streets hurting and killing one another or starving, partly due to a lack of job skills marketable in the U.S., partly due to a genetic social character which does not blend well there until things are more changed, can be traced to the Fed and its cash-bloated legislators, and their desires, part pollyannaish and part greed, to neither permit nor create a climate of optional labor and compensation which could remedy this. Mountains upon mountains of expressly non-racist policy papers have discussed the school to prison pipeline and other similar topics regarding the social mandates of this age, and while it's not the fault of white people in Nebraska if black people in Baltimore shoot random people over social disagreements--which the desperate authors of these mountains of essays do not see nor want to see--the facts of the lifelong incarceration mandated upon that part of the misplaced world have been thoroughly documented. The disgusting vampires in American government, and their creators at the Fed, cannot be divorced from their Jewish aspect. And this Jewish aspect is so pronounced, so heritable, and so incredibly genetically disproportionate as to not only the American, but the entire world's population, that it is impossible to not notice it without having been conditioned not to notice it.

(It is popular nowadays for people to share "Lion eats man walking in the wilds"-type articles, and to continue to judge Mexican drunk drivers and African-American rapists by Europeoid standards, mocking the perpetrators as stupid and dangerous, but at some point, if you really believe science, you have to stop affecting shock at the lion when the lion eats the fat naked man filling his bottle at the watering hole, and instead transfer that shock to the idiot who was striding naked and alone and unarmed to that watering hole to fill his water bottle. Admittedly, perhaps those articles have to be shared and discussed to some degree now, when people don't believe in the differentiation of species, but one might hope for a higher intellectual level of analysis, where a discussion can be had which moves beyond how haha stupid and violent the lion is and how haha stupid and clueless the fat dude is. Discussing historical Jewish perspectives on immigration policy without regressing into "haha aren't lions violent" moments seems like a step in the right direction. Yes, of course lions are violent, and of course it helps Jews adjust societies in subtle ways when lions are permitted immigration, but for God's sake, who would be so stupid as to allow them to do it?)

Control of the mass media, and the influence of the mass media, is another such topic, where the small cabal of genetic cohorts acts much like the Fed, and any study of it free of the conditioning not to notice it leads to the same mandatory conclusions: that it is such an extreme overrepresentation, so consistent, and with such clear motives and means and opportunity, as well as eyewitnesses and proud confessions and threats, that the discussion of such issues boils down to effectiveness of conditioning versus degree of freedom from conditioning, not the facts available to either side, for there are only acts of willfully blind faith and exhortations that we must join the warmth of ignorance together, not anything else, for those who would prefer to believe that there are no self-interested organisms who could possibly be that clever.

Many Europeans and Americans have been able to realize that central banks and mass media are the linchpin of the entire deadly operations, responsible for every single thing they don't like: taxes at all; taxes being misdirected; terrible politicians; brutal warfare; decaying societies and cities; dismissal to misery and death of people "without skills" or with too much dignity to prostitute themselves for life...yet, the ability to draw the rather simple connections behind the central banks and mass media is all but impossible. And this one is not suggesting that a horde of beings in the process of extinction, or a majority of them, or a large and committed enough minority that could force an end to the confusion of an otherwise-complacent majority, is capable of fixing anything. In the early 1900s, people were warning that it was going to be too late if something wasn't done now; that if they weren't careful, Bernard Baruch and his friends were going to win, and it would all be downhill and hopeless after that. And with all due respect to those forebears, they were right. That battle is already lost. The "liberals," if you want to call them that, have had their bacchanal through the societies that were built, and now not just buttfucking, but buttfucking in public, is a vital human right, you can't get together with a bunch of neighbors and establish standards, and it's already long lost. The writers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century were right, with accurate predictions, about what today would look like, and it's painful to realize but they were so right about that (this) that maybe they were also right about there being no more hope of regeneration if this happened.

God, I feel so bad for you. I want to end on a high note like "Oh if we just seize control of a local credit union movement we can gradually..." but there's just no way. The trillions are already counted and anyone who gets to be too big of a speck to accomplish anything will be crushed. Whether or not the Sino-Jews intervene in a future conflict between mestizo America and the caliphate of the U.S.E. remains to be seen (my money's on the mestizos, especially if it lasts longer than a month), but one thing is clear: whoever wins, what will be left won't be like what was here a hundred years ago or what was dreamed of yesterday, that's to be sure.

Friday, April 6, 2018

Resisting Religious Indoctrination

This one first discussed in this blog format how light complexifies itself in a way we can archivally view as evolution in Lightform Evolution. A few more examples were teased out in Abscesses of Note and Cyclic Lightform Development. Stylistically, the dominance of the Terran Bang religion has resulted in most complexification essays, or evolution essays, approaching the issue from the perspective of arguing against Bangist evolution, which attests to such ridiculous mathematical impossibilities as bees and flowers randomly and independently evolving in complementary fashion at the same time, among countless other leaps of faith which must be accomplished to be a good and dutiful Bangist.

Evaluating the existence of the Christian God can start well, but ultimately fails at a critical mass of impossibility. Consider:

1) There exists an all-powerful entity who created everything. Okay, who knows?

2) This all powerful entity took human shape and came to Earth a couple thousand years ago. Okay, who knows?

3) This all powerful entity wants you to engage in sexual congress in only certain ways, even if you otherwise reproduce more than average. Okay, he thinks that deviating from norms will harm others' behavior, cut down on total reproduction either now or eventually, and you should set a good example.

4) This all powerful entity covered the sky in impenetrable plastic wrap preventing anyone from going up there. Full stop. The producers of future religions need to be sure not to load their dogma with something which can be easily physically disproven. I can buy a cell phone, get my telescope, get access to a monitoring program, make some unplanned trips to a different part of the globe, have some calls with my acquaintance of which we later verify the details after the phones themselves are destroyed, repeat the experiment twenty times, and thus verify that our phones were accessing trans-firmament satellites in order to transmit those calls. For Judaism/Christianity, it would have seemed unbelievable to some when the religion was created that man would ever rise above the place where the firmament was supposed to be, and thereby disprove the dogma even to the gullible, and it seemed similarly unbelievable to the creators of Bang that people might later use their own illustrative data of the fossil record to challenge, rather than revel in the glory of, their conclusions. Telling people that a firmament definitely does exist around the galaxy, or the universe, is a mistake of similar type, for once the best spaceships can't find the "edge" of the expanding verse, priests will have to start saying, "It's actually meant to be metaphorical," and the intelligence ceiling of Bang will lower farther below critical mass.

The media monopoly is similarly more complex as of late. Once, it was acceptable to have effective worldwide control of what everyone believed, and because of that control, it was impossible for people to "spread the word"--to discuss how awful their local media was, who owned it, and who those owners/managers might share interests with. One person riding through town with a message is quite easy to dismiss. But the internet has provided new challenges for media owners, because now people in Australia and Russia and Brazil and Alaska can compare notes and determine the similarities and shared interests of the owners of the media machines telling them what is real. It's not an unsolvable problem; perceptions of popularity, true or false, can still get the job done, and those statesmen who try to restrict outside media or build a media apparatus responsible to the local polity can be demeaned or destroyed, but there's still a little hole of suspicion through which an ordinary powerless person can learn, "Oh, I was right," instead of the former suspicion about the many Sumner Redstones who force us to talk to each other in certain ways, "I bet it's like this everywhere."

Addressing this painful, embarrassing issue directly is, of necessity, painful and embarrassing, at least socially, for even the last iteration of "Things Goyim Should Believe" (v. 2.0, also known as early Orthodox Christianity) has come to accommodate all the central tenets of Bangism, whereby a singular creation event created everything, and an indecipherable force is responsible for that event, which--directly and verbally, from the creator of the "Big Bang" theory himself--is likened unto the omnipotent rabbi to whom we owe all reality. All rationalizations, so to speak, come back to Bangism, whether political or personal. The conception of the competitive evolution of stars and planets, and lifeforms on planets, underscores everything we think and do; everything we argue about, and every policy we make. In the Bangist world, we deal with differing religions with polite aloofness, where those idiots who believe outdated creation stories are, by definition, outdated, and it's frankly amazing they can grow food or distribute food or maintain an imitation of a civil society. And yet they can; states with a majority of a population which did not believe in the Big Bang or understand partial Darwin have, as yet, developed more and more impactful technology than those which have properly believed. Even outdated nominally "Christian" science, or the 1800s in Europe, have made things which more affected past and modern peoples' lives in a positive way than the computer, and to say that is to invite debates over pre-Christian notions of "ways to trick fathers into identifying and caring about and investing in their offspring," thereby releasing powerful forces onto all societies, such that those societies which didn't practice these techniques were left backward ruins until 2018, or earlier notions about agriculture and animal husbandry, which were likely of far more social impact than the smartphone or the telephone at all.

The competency and the capability of the non-Bang society is, therefore, beyond question, though like Christianity, the ability of the Bangist society to claim effervescent credit for its scruples having underlaid all past good things is profound. The Randomness God's plan for causing people to develop everything good and useful is well known. Fear of cruel nature inspiring the creation of great works of art, great fortunes, et cetera, justifies all accomplishment, past and present, although as we're reminded often, you can't take it with you. However, because it's not often personified, randomness tends to be disavowed as a god, though its traits match those of one quite well; besides being a creator who has created all existence, randomness explains everything and has caused everything good to happen while having mysterious but somehow valid reasons for causing all bad things to happen. The mental reassurance that "it was random" offered to believers is profound, leading to mockery or hatred of non-believers, but more importantly, providing an ideatic framework through which all experiences may be rationalized.

Likely, given the worldwide diffusion of agriculture and animal husbandry even to regions populated by peoples not inherently skilled in creating or utilizing such techniques on their own, pre-Christian societies were far more dynamic and responsive than post-Christian or post-Bangist ones, despite massive attempts, in each latter case, for the new religions to (unsuccessfully) convert all other lands and peoples for their own good.

Like earlier attempts at mass stupidity, the prima facie unbelievable aspects of Bangism are quite easy to find, and tracing its sordid history instructive. With more modern record-keeping, we could in the 300s A.D., or a millennium later, as we found it then or now, know that "Christianity" was an evolving, human-created concept that passed through many absolutely correct forms before a different one was chosen in Nicea as a result of political negotiations between peoples who had ethnic reasons for wanting to seize the territory then called Europe. The modern orthodox lilt was bred in the blood and shattered bone of countless thousands of non-conformists--even more dramatic, non conformists who thought they believed in and loved and were fighting for Jesus Christ, and who had talked to people who had talked to people et cetera who had talked to Jesus and had reported what Jesus had said about the right things to do, and the lie of peace was known from the start, where in another, earlier era, these types of circumstances might've been unknown. We can now, similarly, review records of early Bangism, where the homosexual Catholic priest, in his attempt to make the Book of Genesis scientific, left writings about his desires to craft such a Genesis-story for manipulating the scientific community, and his presentation of an incomplete Bangist theory which was developed over the years to coincide with the ascendant reworking of the "randomness" element added to the Christian Charles Darwin's theories about organisms developing useful or meaningful traits and then continuing to exist while others without those traits died off. Yes, in its own way, even the sanitized version of the Bangist story is as telling as that of the Council at Nicea with regards what one may rationally believe or whom one may trust to tell the story; the enthusiasm that so many have had, over the years, to defer independent judgment and join the bandwagon has a great deal to say about the stagnation or devolution of the human intellect. It seems, at first, that nothing has changed, but perhaps even the man in the clouds maintaining the firmament against which communications satellite have been crashing (stay tuned for Round 164 of Samsung v. God, beginning next March, where it is expected Samsung's pact with Lucifer will finally yield a missile capable of piercing the shower curtain of the cosmos and revealing untold mysteries beyond) is a more plausible story than the hilarious fantasy of some galaxies moving away from a certain point being clear evidence of a certain type of explosion at a certain place, which had as one of its properties the by-product of creation, rather than merely an explosion, which may as far as we know occur naturally every 90 billion years, having happened then and there, or some other phenomena out of hypothetical many phenomena which has caused galaxies to move. It's rather sad, and trying, to see that the accumulation of wishful, traumatized "evidence" which has formed the basis of so many careers based entirely around this faith, where minds that presumably could have investigated the nature of reality were instead consumed with finding something, anything, which could conceivably be linked to the conclusion of something which they already believed.

It likely means little to any local who has already accepted into his heart faith in the Big Bang, for whom the desire to believe in a God is simply a demon-inspired heresy caused by either demons or an unfortunate result of random stupidity (or a formerly helpful trait of conformity which is now defunct, but the examination of these two religions and the decisions of their adherents to so adhere may someday prove interesting. Without experiment, and with limited observation conducted at a distance with the intent of finding only things which can verify the truth of the faith, Bangism scientifically speaking is quite similar to science experiments which might validate Christianity--e.g. a group of men in lab coats observing a series of volunteers from out back of the local bus station attempt to walk on water--but is different, is sadder, in that it doesn't even speak as to the individual believer's existential concerns for wanting to believe that a sub-microscopic yet massive space creation happened with random unknowingness several billion years ago. Like the degeneration of the narrative, we can see how Christianity has a protagonist, a struggle, an antagonist, a setting, a raison d'ĂȘtre, et cetera, but the Bang fantasy has none of these things, as though people who very desperately need to believe in something which they haven't personally observed (nor experienced, but at least Christians can say they experienced God's love) transcends any notions of demanding proof. It may be only decades, or it may be millennia, before some new illusion has permitted the average Terran to analyze how flawed, how stupid, it is to pretend that sub-microscopic intrinsic reality created every other reality by virtue of explosions, but whenever it happens, we can hope that it is not the raw stupidity which Terrans then may analyze, but the ways in which nonsense no longer needed to justify itself with some kind of narratively visceral emotional embrace in order to be imbibed by the patient. The change in what kind of story people need to believe in something could tell us a lot about how the human mind has changed over the years. (Except that this time we completely know what's real; don't associate us with those people, those so-called predecessors of ours, who were completely stupid and didn't know nothin', we have no flaws or if we do they are nothin' like their flaws.)

The Genesis of Bang

It is interesting to approach reworked Genesis--now on its third version, after the goyim wouldn't simply accept "God is real and the Jews are his chosen people" religion, and after serious believing Christianity began to fail in the face of rudimentary astronomical and other petty local science--from a critical perspective. It's something of an acid test for inquiry, where the ability to even contemplate that the new Genesis could be false may serve as a precursor, a precondition, to so many other acts of science. If you haven't heard of or contemplated a world beyond Bang, the New Genesis deconstruction offered by a former dogmatist, with many internal church memos and magic formulae, in The Big Bang Never Happened is quite instructive.

Nu-Christian Evolution Pre-Eminent

Far more powerful a component of our modern religion is the dogma of randomized mutation. Like Transubstantiation, the nuances of what was real or good and when it was real or good reveal the subconscious nervousness of proponents, who find it exceedingly more comfortable to argue about speculative details than core theses. Evolution, though, is more akin to the "Revelations" of the Bangist holy books than the "Genesis," in which predictions are vaguely suggested, warnings given, and a more dramatic approach offered to why you'd better swallow the whole story.

Throughout this one's recent blog-essays on the topic, we've discussed some of the more central problems with the attempt to birth a random god to explain the totality of history. In Lightform Evolution, we discussed "Ammonia Lungs," where the occurrence of a random, error-filled evolution should have littered the fossil record with organisms which had developed, over millions of years, incomplete organs that ended up not being chosen by randomness, yet, just like all successful organs that developed over many years, would have left incomplete versions of themselves in the fossil record. As a fish which develops lungs which can respirate Terran air rather than water does not instantaneously develop these lungs through a single birth with a purpose, but randomly due to a series of small germ-line mutations over a period of at least fifty years (joke; we're in the range of millions of years), then during that period of development, there are incomplete lungs growing inside the affected organisms, which not only do not yet respirate air, but also do not cause the organism with the weird useless calorie-consuming clunky slowdown organ to be disfavored by natural selection. Even if so, evidence should show lots of these predecessor organisms, and yet there is no such evidence, demonstrating that evolution had a purpose of some type, which we do not yet understand. By "ammonia lungs," we mean that, if "air lungs" could be time-consumingly, randomly developed over the course of X million years, then it must be possible to gradually develop various types of gas-processing lungs over a long period of time without instantly (or even gradually) dooming the failures, ergo mathematically speaking there should be a preponderance of fossilized organisms which had evidence in their bodies of "air lungs in process" along with many, many others who had evidence of "ammonia lungs in process" or "ammonia lungs completed--worthless for breathing so the organism remained a full time swimmer but had already proved that you can develop a non working lung without becoming culled by natural selection." There must have been, therefore, some relationship between the Terran air and the lungs developed by the Terran organisms who became land-dwellers. And what that relationship is, and why the fossil record insists that it was there by exhibiting such a smooth transition between species, rather than a plethora of incompletes or now-surviving things with the wrong types of lungs that nonetheless did not and do not harm their chances of survival, is something that could have been investigated if Terran humans did not have such a strong aversion to inquiry.

Abscesses of Note continued this theme into the realm of external features, noting that new limbs growing in the wrong places do not much or at all appear in the fossil record, but new limbs developing in the proper places do appear, almost as though genes know where the ground is and where a limb will be useful. Our inability to understand how a gene can know which direction is "up" and which is "down" is a gaping hole in what we're calling here "science," and one which, in our passion for belief, we seem to have no interest in filling.

We gave a brief but more generally (non-Terran) description of how light actually evolves in Cyclic Lightform Development, and in Legs in Eggs, turned to the principle of fractals to consider the ways in which solutions to small problems often mirror solutions to large ones of the same type, wherein the competitive material harm of feelings which are nonetheless present in "the fittest" demonstrate some later use of which we are not currently aware. In keeping with the endless relevancy of fractals, the Bangist accusation, "You are a quickly vanishing non-thing whose perceptions are only illusions which help you reproduce" is, as a philosophy, akin to a schoolyard bully telling his victim, "You suck," and should be seriously contemplated, or responded to, with comparative appropriateness. The atrocious attacks offered by this religion, as opposed to the banal flattery offered by its predecessor, are rather nihilist of an outcome. Whereas initial Judaism was more like the prison-camp chant "We love the leader...the leader is powerful...the leader might crush us if we don't adore him enough..." Christianity became a rather blasé symposium of flattery, "The totally most powerful thing ever created everything just because He loves you," which was rudely replaced by the "your existence is an illusion, loser," of Bangism. This is a closer message to original Judaism for gentiles, leaving it to material realities to convey the message of the chosen people's supremacism; indeed, for the standalone Pentateuch, Bangism is a good imitation. The "dark matter" role of gentiles in the Pentateuch is to serve as aspects of dumb reality who participate in dominating the Jews, as with plagues or deserts, whenever the religion isn't followed well enough, and are then some or all killed when the Jews are faithful enough obeying the God who made them to be the best. The Big Bang is present in both cases, and while the chosen people will meld with Greater Judaism when they die, the redundant matter of all other people will just die and be always gone. Bangism confirms both of these aspects of the Torah, verifying that yes, an instant and always inexplicable creation happened, where it is left to the Bangist Talmud--the insane echo chamber of Bangist commentaries on reality, which we might call the media--to specifically state that the Jews are the Chosen People. In a world where racism is the original sin which may not be committed by any, the Chosen may recognize their race, recognize that others are not part of it, and have a nation devoted exclusively to caring for that race and massacring all others (or, early in this period, merely "some nearby others"). Creation of every other fodder was pointless and random, the evolution of everything non-Chosen was pointless and random, and the written and verbal descriptions of to whom all restrictions do not apply, as well as actualized international policy, make clear that the Chosen are still the Chosen. Interesting how this split, of creating a religion by a combination of holy texts and national policies, is really not that different from how it was done before, but how deceptive it appears to observers, who may view the work of the churches differently--the duly ordained granters of degrees, who self-define intelligence based on adherence to their doctrine--they have made their work seem utterly separate from the governments which base short- and long-term national policies on that work's assumptions, as though Church and Nobility are now, suddenly, two entirely separate things. Were the ancients really savvier than the moderns, for realizing that the authority of their time was self-buttressing?

Cash in briefcases, however clearly it may be surmised, is no longer necessary. The average citizen from, say, Vietnam, can now go on the internet and instantly determine that Judge Smith's son received a lucrative job from Big Corporation 3 months after the lawsuit was dismissed. That same citizen can also look at how the ethnicity and citizenship of the dual-citizen Senator, who led the fight in the U.N. vote against Vietnam's vote, was himself a citizen of the country that would have been sanctioned by the vote. There's no need for conspiracies any longer, with all that information publicly accessible and twenty-step verifiable in seconds; it is, instead, the mediated (sic) action and interaction of citizens which proves far more decisive than mere "facts."

These illusions under which most of us live now are rather historically hilarious. The preeminence of the present in the process of thought is, certainly, profound; we tend to think that the thinker of our time must be correct, because it is our time, and not one of those unreliable before times. Why is God loving? Because babies are cute. Why is God great? Because the Grand Canyon is big. We're so amazed by ourselves, and by what we see, that we don't imagine the possibility of being wrong; we so assiduously criticize the inaccurate belief systems of most, or perhaps all, cultures before now as terribly deficient and ignorant, compared to the culture which finally got it right, or at least, as right as anyone possibly could. I have that difficulty myself, when considering some aspect of Bangism, whether the creation story or evolution without purpose; it is difficult for mere facts, such as a fossil record which has in harmony created exactly the lungs that were needed to breathe Terran air, and no others, to compete against the massive weight of current consensus, and even facing an unbroken spiral of changing worldviews, it is difficult to conceive of another such change. Us, be outdated and obviously wrong? Unthinkable! Impossible! Irresponsible! I'm not ever going to die and you take that back now or I'll never play with you again!

Which raises the question, are we so desperate, so covetous of our now-intelligence, that we cling to the obvious errors of the un-coordinated, un-complementary changes in planetary organisms, to the giant plastic wrap covering our precious sky, simply because we fear death? Or is there something greater at play, here, as we celebrate stupidity not cursedly alone but blessedly together? It isn't a "basic" scientific principle elsewhere that planets, like galaxies, evolve their components with a large degree of coordination, such a necessary integration of simple mechanical goals, or that the verse is this immortal, eternal thing; not basic, because learning about the "how" and "why" of those processes is, however foundational, something that is learned and understood rather than guessed for granted. And how embarrassing, really, to consider an earthly scientific consensus of millions of the faithful coming to terms with the existence of some other culture where tens of billions, or hundreds of quintillions, of people working on better technology projects understands what an immature error Bangism is? Suddenly less numerically popular, would Earth's faithful start squealing about fanciful stories explaining background radiation and the movement of galaxies, or would they quietly adapt to the relative popularity? Probably the latter, and their reasons for doing so would be, sadly, duplicates of the problem.

Addressing this subject is sort of like trying to convince the biggest, toughest bully in a kindergarten that there are, actually, other people out there in the non-kindergarten world of whom he should be wary. People for whom, even, defeating him in a physical contest would be a joke. And, for emotional reassurance, to warn him against predicating his self image upon the assumption that no one else can be tougher. We can run that analogy all the way to the world champion fighter in any given year, and his contemplation of his aging, or of some other development in unarmed combat, or some change in generally-accepted rules, that would render his skills, and most or all fans' memories in a decade or a century, perhaps worthless to fans and analysts a hundred years later. How to deal with that--that sense of terror at the impermanence of it all? Does impermanence, or non-duplicability, make something worthless? No, not at all; that's part of what "memory" is for, and why deleting it would be so evil.

Rabbi bin Rabbi

Absent from most mainstream discussion of pre-Catholicized Roman history is what may have been the last attempt of Jewish groups to "honestly" conquer Europe, which of course failed: the Jewish Roman wars. Crypsis here was only really available as a personal tool, rather than a group one. It's little surprise that, when Rome was burning and starving, the Germanic tribes which tried to stop northward-moving aggression, were characterized by late-second-millennium historians as barbarian invaders, while the Jewish invaders of Italy, before they decided to try Christianity and using slaves to spawn Ashkenazim instead, are now characterized as innocent, repressed religious minorities, and the Jewish attacks themselves are almost wholly obscured in pedagogy by sob stories about throwing "Christians" to lions.

Saudi Royals again come out publicly for Israel.

The cryptic, crypto Jews running the faux-Muslim Saudi state demonstrate to us this strange obsession that Jews have with controlling land which ties into their profitable, but seemingly fading, narrative of the Torah and its formally acknowledged sequels. The genes behind Jerusalem, the Vatican, Mecca, and various other religious locales, have remained relatively static since inception in each case, and particularly since Nicea, the cooperation of various types of Jew in handcrafting dramaturgical bylines for the global community, and in making it appear a diverse vote, has become a worn pattern with predictable roles.

Scalding or killing women with acid, tossing people off buildings and calling them gay because someone said something too insightful against the rather visually obvious leaders, murdering unknown numbers of people for various capricious reasons, shipping in whores from overseas and maybe not returning them--Saudi Arabia has it all, and, because unlike in Israel, there is no feigned ethnic distinction between rulers and ruled, no one seems to care. Westerners tend to think Saudi Arabia is "bad," but unlike with Israel, they think that in a vague, non-interventionist kind of way, where they're encouraged to not "take action" because the idea of an oppressed minority (actually a majority, still) resonates with what they've been spoon-fed. Let Saudi Arabia murder more Muslims than Israel in any given year, though, and still nobody cares. In a few centuries, when the bodies have all been cremated, there will be no way for later historians to prove that it was just another Jewish state, though a less honest one.

Why this carefully orchestrated creation of multiple states and/or private fiefdoms to control religious holy sites? Having a Vatican run by a gentle-appearing Jewish grandfather-type vampire makes sense, given its effectiveness in taking Europe, and Saudi Arabia is justifiable given the pretense of securing oilfields from other Arabs, but Israel itself has no resources of note except for its position in the narrative verse for all three (two, more correctly put, but three if you let them rewrite history to make the original release, before the then-unplanned sequels, seem like part of a symphony). On this topic, one can't help but recall the relevant Indiana Jones story where a Jew saves Judeo-Christian relics for his own use, assisted by a doddering old Englishman no less (and, ultimately, saved by their understanding that Jewish power is not something one should see; hide your eyes). It's all a zany enough stew that it makes you wonder if they're placating a segment of their population that actually uses their own product. It could just be, or have been, for Christian Zionists, or ordinary cattle, of course, but degrees gone to to control the magic land suggest it's more than just a matter of positioning strategy.

It's almost like they, or some portion of them, believe in their fables about the man above the firmament, and they get some satisfaction from owning the setting. Either that, or they don't believe but know that others do, and there's such a powerful satisfaction in owning worthless nothings because others want them that it makes it all worth it. Likely the latter, given how the k'arash operate; unable to recognize intrinsic worth, but able to gain satisfaction in owning whatever someone else has been led to believe is valuable, like if they'd come up with a geyser-based religion and had to hold Yellowstone because of it.