Friday, September 9, 2016

Misattributing Agency to Tools

Feminism is responsible for space travel or feminism is irrelevant to space travel. Whichever your choice, you're left with a conundrum: is feminism responsible for space travel and nuclear war, or is it responsible for neither space travel nor nuclear war? Multiculturalism is responsible for men walking on the moon, and without gay acceptance we wouldn't have smartphones.

What simple fallacies. People can claim to believe in something, or can actually believe in something, and can do good things or bad things which are or are not related to what they claim to yet disbelieve in or claim to and actually believe in. The NRA is responsible for murder-suicides, patriarchy is responsible for Transformers movies, Shinto upsets Yahweh who sends tsunamis, and so forth.

Did western societies and western scientists adopt, or claim to adopt, various philosophies in order to get through the day, get through school, get a government contract, impress the boss, leave what they thought would be a meaningful mark on history, et cetera? Or, were the underlying truths of feminism pulling the strings when entities of a Terran generation designed the Hubble telescope or Apollo spacecraft? Was Jesus whispering in von Braun's ear when he did the math, or was it Germaine Greer, Uncle Sam, or FDR? H.G. Wells?

We rally around various causes as excuses for our success; as though they might be clues to our liberation. Oh yes, for a time there some people who seemed to be doing okay mentioned The Feminine Mystique, therefore feminism. Uhh, I'm pretty sure they said they were doing it for Jesus, therefore Jesus. But how did the Romans build aqueducts and keep the Semitics at bay for so long without what they call "Christ"? Christianity's greatest status as a tool is that of being the rallying point for a slow, endless retreat, and a rationalization of failure. Since its inception, "The Church" in all its forms, even when it got slightly less-pozzed by Martin Luther, has been like the UK Labour or US Democratic Party to an anti-war voter, or the UK Conservative or US Republican Party to an anti-invasion voter: a standard of "certain defeat, but a bit slower!"

If we've survived, it is in spite of the infection, not because of it. Championing Christ-messianic Judaism as the source of strength or survival is like an obese person claiming that fatness saved them by teaching them about positive body image, or an HIV positive person who is "relieved" and thinks everyone should get HIV so it's not a big worry anymore. The moon landing happened in spite of subsidizing inner-city African births, not because of it. What is left of Europe's people exists in spite of Sophia's mistake, not because of it (or, if you prefer, in spite of various Mesopotamian creation stories being plagiarized by traveling merchants who used them to rewrite host cultures' traditions to facilitate parasitic resource extraction).

There is nothing to reclaim up the Pentateuchal path. The Pope washes rapefugees' feet, and temporally-distorted now-people think, "This bad, this wrong, Pope supposed to lead fight to protect people!" Wrong. You know how openness about homosexuality led to homosexual rights led to homosexual marriage, and how it was all part of a sliding scale to remove the traditional family from society, right? That's what a lot of people seem to think, now. Well, the Pope washing invaders' feet is the logical, necessary, inextricably connected next-step in what the church of Semitic plagiarization has always been.

Some of us look back now, and we think, "Oh, repealing sodomy laws is okay, but granting pedophiles civil protections is just too far." Others of us look back and think, "Ah ha, repealing sodomy laws was part of this whole thing." Turn those same goggles on all the various Torah-derived churches. The initial message was, "We can admit foreigners as slaves and expendable contract workers." To people of the time, that would be an obvious prelude to invasion--not only insane and long-term suicidal, but morally reprehensible as well. Slavery isn't good for us and it isn't good for them. Institutional slavery is Yahweh's way; it has always been his way, and when those ideas first began to poison Europe, they were resisted violently. Now, you cucks look back at 10th century popes and think, "Oooh, how based, he says it is acceptable to kill subhuman Muslims." Whom he brought there! Early papal bulls about defeating infidels are equivalent to Obama speeches about cop killing being "unacceptable" expressions of anger. Everything that is now was scripted into the Torah-founded virus sent this way thousands of years ago. At this rate, in a few hundred years, people will say, "Wow, Christians back in the 21st were so based! When they brought in refugees, they offered them counseling programs with a clear message of not raping or murdering. It's a little too early to rediscover our Christian roots and re-implement traditional, Evropan training courses, but I say we demand that all of our sons' Sabbath cheek-lube be taxpayer-provided, instead of having to buy it ourselves!"

Early "Christian" Judaism was designed to forge better relations between hosts (future Christians) and future foreign invaders than would have happened without Judeo-Christianity, ergo the early conflicts and strong rhetoric exchanged between "Christians" and Semitics looks like serious disagreement now in the 21st century, but was, at the time, a comparatively benevolent pro-invasion policy, which only looks like antagonism in distant retrospect, after the needle has been pushed so much farther. At the time, it was seen as horribly invasive and wrong, and Europe's true defenders were slaughtered or enslaved by pro-Semitic cucks. How terrible it is that some of us selectively remember only our more recent, more traitorous ancestors, while neglecting the thousands of years prior, during which agriculture and civilization were invented. Imagine how rapidly printing presses, steam engines, V-2 rockets, and world platforms would've been developed if not for the assaults of Abramic Yahwehism, Hellenic Yahwehism, Christian Yahwehism, and Islamic Yahwehism.

How many generations of blut und boden will you spit upon in order to revere the relatively recent Baby Boomers of the longer age?

2 comments:

  1. Your examples are intentionally facetious. Anyone can film a 'moon landing', the right ideological sauce is Leo Strauss.

    In fact, as a fan of this blog, i dont think this one is up to the usual standard. Joe public knows precisely nothing of the whys and wherefores of actual technical progress. And the hofdichters are busy proclaiming yoga courses in canadian universities to be 'cultural appropriation'. Is it possible for an african warlord to 'culturally appropriate' the 555 timer IC? Its always the big ones, the printing press, the lightbulb etc.
    mit yaldabaothischen/demiurgeschen Gruessen aus Schottland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, cheap examples, but still a valid point about perspectives. NASA right now has mission statements about diversity, therefore diversity equals (real or faked) Mars landings? People will say what they have to say to keep their jobs, and they'll even believe what they're saying depending on the era in which they live, or the personal beliefs they have about the meanings of words and the way words should be understood. So Thomas Jefferson saying "God" does not mean the same thing as does Ted Cruz when the latter says "God," and so forth. If we take every word that means [supreme entity associated with tradition X] and ascribe any correlated success stories to our preferred spiritual motives, we're likely in error.

      Regarding Joe Public, there are actually a lot of them, more every semester, who believe that "Feminism produces moon landings" is not facetious but is quite logical. They've learned that correlation equals causation so long as the resulting correlation pleases the current deity.

      Delete