Friday, December 30, 2016

In Defense of our Functionaries; Oprah; Trump; Stalin

In my very early childhood, I paid witness to one of Oprah's programs, and thought, "She's one of those nice ladies they have on TV." In my mid-early childhood, I ran across her again, and concluded, "Oh, she's the devil." Not with any drama did I draw the latter conclusion, but rather, in the childhood manner of simply accepting what is seen. For years that explanation satisfied me; I can still see how, if the Prince of Darkness actually existed, and actually wished to have a negative impact on the mortal plane during the late 20th/early 21st centuries, he would adopt the form of a disadvantaged overweight black female, become a powerful and wealthy media figure, and lead people into various idiocies, all the while congratulating himself on how he was defeating God by proving the futility and/or wrongness of creation itself.

I still largely stand by that assessment of Oprah, except that greater/lesser powers of discernment have caused me to see the devil acting not specifically through Oprah, but through Oprah®. Oprah is probably just some poor dummy they trained for the job, who, by a reasonable twist of fate, could be avidly watching her alternately-realitied replacement, believing in everything that was said, and getting ruined by it without understanding why or how. In that, I see a similarity between the Oprah/Oprah® relationship, and the respective relationships between, say, Trump and Trump®, Rowling and Rowling®, or Stalin and Stalin®. It's certainly sad and shameful what the person is participating in, but are the peculiarities of the puppet either necessary or contributory toward the syncretic result? Does the person actually understand what it is the persona is doing?

Like I can see an Oprah in a different multiverse watching WomanShow® (or whatever you wanna call it) and completely, totally, purely trusting in and believing it, I can see Trump in Best Buy trying to get people to upgrade from DVD to Blu Ray, or Rowling fingering herself to 50 Shades of Grey (actually, that scene may occur in this multi also, but for purposes of example, assume the first encounter occurs in the multi in which someone else was tapped for Harry Potter, and Rowling remained poor and unknown), or Private Stalin vomiting on his ranking sergeant in Kursk 1943 and being beaten and stripped of future vodka privileges.

What makes my own social function, if any, ultimately different from this world's Oprah®? Oprah couldn't have planned Oprah® herself, anymore than Trump could write Art of the Deal or sell anything bigger than a car without someone else's assistance. And if I were offered the opportunity to become Oprah® or Trump® at their rate (even their starting rate), I'd take it. Would I have the power to, once I had a few years' apartment-managing (or talk show) money saved up, quietly leave the scene, thereby forfeiting my place to someone equally bad? Or would I have the resolve to use my position to speak out against my public persona? I'd like to think so--that, once I had some savings, I could expose the system that had used me--but I think that when people do that, they end up with an unforeseen or rapidly-concluding medical condition, suicide, or car crash.

I guess that gives me hope. Celebrity functionaries who die like that might be the proof of living redemption--people eliminated before they can admit what they know, because they really were good people, and they managed to resist the allure of power for power's sake, once they had enough to put Ferrari on the table, excuse me, food on the table. Or, maybe weird drug interactions and small plane crashes just happen to people like that, and once you've completed your first assignment and gotten paid, you're already so corrupted that there's no turning back.

Given that, what do we do? Do we hate Oprah because she became Oprah®, peddler of things too big and stupid and evil for her to understand? We can righteously hate, say, Clinton or Leibowitz or Dershowitz, or people who understand what it is they're doing...or do they? Does higher verbal ability mean that, unlike a Trump or an Oprah, they actually understand the cosmic significance of their role, or their intended prescriptions? If they actually did (or could have) written their own books, does that mean they're actually their persona®? And, that said, should we revile them for ongoing participation in the persona, or for, instead, the one choice that really mattered--that first, "sell your soul" choice, in which they agreed to, for one season, be that persona?

Viscerally, I tend to want to make an intelligence-based and sexed-base assessment. I'd like to find fault with Clinton (Hillary/Chelsea), because they crack a certain level of projective intelligence, while not finding fault with Oprah, who is simply too dim to be anything other than the luckiest one of her audience members. Trump, by contrast--while less intelligent and perhaps less willfully-evil than Hillary/Chelsea, I'd still fault, since that's what you sign up for when you choose male. But am I doing him an injustice? Should he--a trans-Oprah, sub-Chelsea phenomenon--be adjudged evil, even if he's merely the most-blessed would-be Walmart night manager in existence? Or poor Stalin, another historically powerful dunce, unable to craft or comprehend the works of a Mao or a Lenin, be charged with responsibility for what any moronic enlisted would do if suddenly handed the reins to a rampaging bear, merely because he was the reverse-piƱata attached to latter-day Bolshevism?

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

McVeigh as Messiah

Timothy McVeigh is the ultimate messianic figure for the 20th century for both the right and the left. Not only did he resist the System, he also did so on behalf of the oppressed population of (A) Iraq and (B) the working European poor. He was a Social Justice Warrior, because he took direct action against the colonizing State in response to the imperial invasion of the people of color in Iraq--he has many quotes against imperialism and the repression of those indigenous peoples, and moral judgments toward the WASP F-16 pilots who bombed Arab settlements. By taking revenge for WACO and Palestine, he exemplified race-realism, HBD, JQ-awareness, and pro-gun constitutionalism. And he was antifa and #BLM, since the Murrah Federal Building exemplified the mundane omnipresence of the corporate-bureaucratic NuState. Given the year of his taking action, he could be pro-gay, too; not only did he resist the incarceration state, he struck a blow for gay marriage.

These overlaps, seemingly facile, help us understand our past and our now. McVeigh certainly wouldn't support "Blue Lives Matter," and the intra-African anti-police (and anti-military) campaigns in Pierce's work suggest McVeigh would support Black Lives Matter as a means to an end. Ergo McVeigh and Soros would be on the same page, using the same tools for the same contemporary ends, albeit for divergent long-term goals.

For homosexuals who celebrate the Stonewall Riots, McVeigh's resistance to the fascist anti-gay-marriage state in the 1990s makes it seem like he should be a gay messiah, also. In a hundred years, McVeigh's attack against the anti-robosexual government might be viewed as a kind of quaint heroism against a widely-acknowledged evil regime of the past, with which then-current androidal would-be spouses would be in complete agreement (whatever McVeigh himself might think of the associated issues). In 2016, McVeigh's collateral actions against a fedgov daycare center could be viewed as a blow against either pedophile networks (rightist) or white supremacist careerist separatism (leftist). All celebration or criticism of the now-archetypal Jesus--he taught forgiveness v. he drove the moneylenders from the temple--could be similarly applied for or against McVeigh, Breivik, Roof, et cetera. If child non-combatants tip the scales of morality, they do so in every direction: against the FBI and the Murrah Feds, the J.O.G.U.S. in Iraq, or McVeigh in Oklahoma. Similarly, if pragmatically damaging one's own racial group to achieve ideological purity is either a deal-breaker or a deal-maker, McVeigh and the U.S. are equally reviled and/or heroic.

Friday, December 23, 2016

Shepherding the Outsiders back to Trump

68 years after refusing to allow the entire rest of the world to stop the elimination of Arabs in Palestine; 68 years after being a juror failing to convict; 8 years into another insanely Zionist presidency: the U.S. at last abstained from voting to shelter the Jews' six trillionth butchery of their own local Tibet.

Every puppet president, every loyal shabbos goy, from the highest White House post to the most modest U.N.-vote-deliverer, has bowed to Israel's will in this matter. Like a black juror refusing to convict a black defendant in an attack on an old white lady witnessed by a thousand people, the U.S. has used its Fed-like security council position to veto action against Israel, while supporting action against everywhere else in the world. Countless trillions of dollars have gone into stopping Africans fighting against the Shell-oil-supported-Africans; the U.S. has even bombed Europe, massacring white Christians, disproving forever (again) the progressive/leftist viewpoint that the U.S. is in any way a "white" country or preferenced toward whites.

And for all of his presidency, Barack Obama has done his best to carry water for Israel. Like most presidents since the elimination of Palestine began, his people occasionally issued vaguely-worded statements asking for an unjust peace; things like, "We hope Israel will stop developing condos on top of the freshly-ground corpses of Arab families and young fertile white protesters, and instead focus on increasing condo floorspace on top of the cooling corpses of last year's Arabs," which was itself enough to send the bloodthirsty Jenomics into frothing rages which were only partially staged, because by God, they love themselves exterminating people.

(It's the closest they can get. Like raping and destroying children, it's a visceral, unsatisfying, temporal proof that they are antilife.)

CNN reports today, here, how the U.S., and Barack Obama, have finally broken with this tradition, and, while complaining about Clinton having won the popular vote and how democracy is important, abstained (they didn't even vote with the rest of the world, and still the Jenomics froth at the hypothetical lack of murder) from voting for more Palestinian grinders.


Why did Obama's outgoing administration do this? Why did the vote happen after Trump's electoral coronation, with so few days of Obama left, and during the Christmas news lull? A single rational explanation: those Jenomic rabble who didn't understand the larger strategy of using Trump are now being played, just as the white nationalists were being played earlier, by the entities behind the U.S. presidency. The anger of many Jews at Trump's presidency and/or election was genuine: they didn't realize that Trump's slurs against Mexicans and Muslims and blacks (cop-killers and violent protesters) were part of a greater strategy to trick idiot Europeans into believing that the answer to Jewish world control was not eliminating the central banks, but to taking out some frustration on a few token minorities. This frustration is meant to bind the U.S. and Israel even closer than before. The reclaiming of white national identity is going to be inextricably bound to Israel and its right to exterminate and enslave host populations.

Obama's waiting until now to "abstain" indicates that his administration (not he himself--he probably vaguely senses the ultimate doom of darker-skinned people at the hands of lighter-skinned Jenomics [which is to say, not destruction, but more-sustainable slavery], but isn't future-time-oriented enough to understand what that means, since he can clap his hands at Soros having a few white cops killed) is on board with the Trump transition. This late move during the Christmas cycle will be picked up by every Jew in the western world as a sign that Obama was "against" them--a selfish belief they will feel even after 7 years of Obama's constant payment for the privilege to fellate. When Trump comes into office, and works on "restoring" the U.S. Israeli relationship, he'll be credited as having done so by all of the Jenomic masses who were formerly against him because of their commitment to the increasingly-outdated "no racism" stance that was so helpful in changing immigration policy among host Euros.

Let's review the issues we've addressed here:

1) Obama has a confrontational relationship with Netanyahu. Ridiculous; he's publicly looted $3 billion a year from the U.S. and given it to Israel. He sold out Americans, and more importantly his voters, on health insurance, running a Romneycare scam, so that he could fund universal health insurance in Israel. He has used his security council vote to block international intervention in Israel for 8 years, retardedly attempted to invade Syria for Israel (they might've let him handle more of that pre-doomed campaign, lol), refused to act on any other U.N. resolutions, refused to prosecute Israeli spies and technology thieves, and let (maybe personally through stupidity but administratively on-purpose) the DHS slip billions more in weapons and cash to Israel. A few snippy metroqueer statements about Israel being a teensy bit nicer to its victims are not, suddenly, a bad relationship.

2) Many American Jews actually didn't like Trump. Many Jews are being used like everyone else. By going hysterical at the prospect of Trump, they provided dimly-JQ-aware Americans with the cue that Trump might do something to free them. Controlling powers in the media knew that the Jews had nothing to worry about, but reported so heavily on Jewish anger in order to ensure a higher white voting bloc so that a pretend nationalist, rather than a pretend universalist, could end up being responsible for the next war.

3) The old parties did not split. The standard Democratic and Republican death-parties are completely on board with the transition. They encouraged Israel throughout the entire Obama administration except for one tiny abstention near the end, made not for real effect but just to cause Trump to appear like a savior. The inconsistency can only be explained by their desire to make Trump appear to be a savior to a small population control-bloc (non-elite Jews). Obama kills Africans and Arabs every Tuesday, and if "he" really had had a moral awakening, he knows how to accomplish things against terrorists in the Middle East. This is obviously an alley-oop to Trump. Like Romney happily preening for Secretary of State, the antagonism was completely false, and the non-Trump politicians were just playing their roles. Similarly, Trump's willingness to consider any of these people--whom during his campaign he called failures, incompetents, dishonest, lying, cheating, etc.--proves that he has no honor or decency, but is, like every other "renegade" candidate who made it since WW2, just another politician.

4) Because of the years-long preplanning and considerate setup treatment given Trump, Trump himself (and/or the people behind Trump, depending on how stupid Trump personally is) is as much a part of the previous administrations as they are of his. The American role of defending Israel from itself, and from the rest of the world, will continue unabated, no matter how many surface coats of paint Trump slaps on domestic politics. This isn't shouldn't be a shocker to any longtime American, but another soulless tool got appointed grand executive. In case you had any shreds of doubt left about Trump--after his years of wholly establishment, western-civilization-destroying behavior, both privately and on television--the fact that Barack Hussein Obama just took a major step to improve Trump's legacy should clue you in.


When Trump calls for war, most of the supposedly "cuck" Republicans will support him. The Democrats will vote with him at least enough to make war work, although some will be selected as permitted to vote anti-war (or, more likely, to make an anti-war statement that idiot Americans will remember, and then to privately vote yes on the war-funding bill) to give them a plausible future claim on post-Trump support.

Humorously enough, a hundred years out, Trump may be viewed as the greatest president ever for American Jews and American Muslims (or U.E.G. Jews/Muslims). He could be known as the one who finally put a stop to liberal Jews' illogical treachery, and brought Euros and Jews even closer together. He might be heralded as the man who saved Islam--the greatest Muslim since the Prophet--by exposing Salafi terror and permitting true, peaceful Reform Islam to come to the forefront. By the time we're all dead, and memories are sifted through the Jenomic news, Trump will be viewed by later critics, both positively (mainstream) and negatively (thought criminal, if any still exist) as a Jewish hero from the beginning--true in either case. All of the positive contributions he will be viewed as having made to history will be attributed to the chosen people.

That will make a fitting epitaph for the white people now who think Trump is a "lesser evil" en route to genetic nationalism: that their electoral triumph--their presumed victory over the media and the power elite--will one day be viewed as a victory of the forces of Judaism. How ironic that, even though they don't know it, those moronic non-emigrating American celebrities who threatened that Trump was a great evil will turn out to be right, in the end.

Hating Meat

We fear acknowledging biological differences because we don't want to lose our personalities--we think that we are our intelligence; that our character is defined by our abilities; and, accordingly, if genes affect our intelligence or behavior, then we are our genes, ergo the suggestion of, say, group differences, shatters us. If African intelligence falls within a certain range, so too does ours, ergo everything that we wanted to believe was special about us is merely the by-product of recursive molecular calculus, forever seeking the entropy of the mean.

We seek immortality in our worldviews. Some deny that genes are relevant, thereby claiming their "selves" as wholly their own; their predilection for the violin, humor, or cross-country racing a result of their choices, and thereby an expression of their character. This is, in a sense, a Christian, which is to say, a purloined Zoroastrian, choice: a rejection of one's ancestors, one's planet, one's star, and one's versal legacy, and a corresponding embrace of self-generated, non-predetermined choices, crafting the individual. One can then believe that one is an expression of that unique oneness, whether or not this "free will" is ascribed to a system of belief. Even if we ourselves die, the fact that we made choices means that we had agency to influence reality, and that agency gives us a participatory immortality. We were, because we defined our own choices. Therefore the evil must be genetic determinism. Crime cannot be hereditary, or at least not decisively so, because to permit that would be to concede that our specialness is not very special, ergo we are temporary flickers of pointless consciousness and the terror overtakes us.

Some of us pursue immortality in the opposite way, by embracing the gene as an expression of a collective personality. "We are our ancestral legacy, and it is us." Our characters and abilities are unique, yet collectively so, being an expression of the decree of god or nature. If we die, but our people live on, we are immortal through them. Therefore we cherish and preserve that legacy, secretly fearful of how it came to be and what it might one day be. Those who resist that legacy in any form are evil incarnate: non-breeding queers, or those who deviate from what we ourselves want to be; those who deviate from the production of future genetic carriers and transmitters threaten our very existence. In them we see the end coming, and the terror overtakes us.

The religious chooser, the genetic determinist, make similar errors, for they see only one part of the structure. We wear our bodies subject to their gradual design, which is integrated with this place. Those affect us, and, to some degree, are us, just as the light we ride to come here is a current made of us and not-us. If "I" come here, I become part of here, logged in to Terra and Sol, part of this place and this history, and affected correspondingly. Maybe my shell constricts or expands what I might otherwise express; maybe I am trapped, and maybe I am released. In either case, I need not be afraid. Subject to the urges of this thing, I might be an exemplary citizen of the appropriate time and place, or the worst of citizens. What I do with this body, this time, will shape this world, this body's legacy, and what I or you take away from it.

We need not deny the unpleasant realities of material constraints in order to accept the sensation of something transmaterial. It is currently vulgar to either accept or deny them. Instead, we believe in willpower. Although often accused of neglecting Nietzsche, we are all in fact supermen, believing that our willpower negates, or can negate, the effects of being here. We will invent a cure for stupidity. We will invent a cure for death. We will invent a cure for taxes. Each harder than the next, but we're all secretly sure that we're on a path to these goals.

You wanted to be a gorgeous female, but you came here as a so-so female. You wanted to be a gorgeous female, but you came here as a so-so male. How different are these quandaries? Being happy with anything less than your highest dreams is nothing more than fat acceptance. Ergo you are either a sub-intelligent drone, a liar, or someone who essentially believes in fat-acceptance. Settling for any of this is failure. The western world's self-esteem craze paid dividends in the form of all of us believing that our selves--these constantly breaking, hideously unresponsive decay-bags you have to wear here--are in some way vested with finitely-deserved or infinitely-contributing potential.

Our choices made us? Think of it as two levels of choice: the choice of what to trap yourself here inside, and the choice of what to do with it once you wake up believing this is all there is.

Rethinking my purpose

I love the neuroweb, but I hate the neuroweb. Why can't it be like it was in the old days? Sending signals to robotic dildos embedded in one another's orifai? There's a purpose to the technical proficiency, the quality, of the experience, but I can't stop telling myself that, ever since we split into multi-celled organisms, we've lost something irreplaceable. Instead of angry petitions, we have hand signals.

I still remember the day I got my first brain. My dad taught me how to use it. Hands on the handlebars.

The lost children of the internet leave frightful ghosts, but maybe it's not that different from the lost children of the woods. I know I don't want to be the one trying to write down all the names. Maybe, in our quest to define ourselves, we have come to see the loss of our own ineffectual non-progress as indicative of our preordained downfall. Maybe we're so selfish we think our own dying pains mean the internet was actually different.

You think 99 Seattle was effective? Chairman Mao was a pussy, because change doesn't come at the barrel of a gun, by which he meant the force of an organized militia, which is why he was alive long enough to ride the wave of Bolshevism toward an eerie retrocapitalism under an imperial banner. Change comes from any one person. If Mao had believed in his own shit, he would've died before the money came in.

If you're a leftist, your heroes have to be Timothy McVeigh and Charles Manson and the last six nameless people to fight a cop over a speeding ticket. Shouting into the void, yes, but at least into a physical void, rather than the internet one. I'm here because I'm riding this nuclear horse into the pit in a fit of abject fantasy. This is not reality. Clock hands spinning in and out of the fourth dimension.

The pure are already dead. We are the inheritors of the defeated, the raped, and the cowardly. The good would not have put up with this shit, which is why we are alone.

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Buttafuoco Cox Knobwood Dickinson

I've always wondered: if I lived in an alternate reality, where English were extremely similar to English here but for two slight differences, and my time-honored family surname were "Rapeschildren," and, due to some small coincidence or conflict of realities, English there suddenly became identical to English long would it take me to change my name? Would I hold out proudly for a generation or ten, believing the association was illusory in the face of an immemorial genetic line? If I were "John Rapeschildren," would I pretend that no one in real life actually said, "I'm going to the john," or, "Stay away from him; he rapes children"? Would I write angry letters to Oxford every year? Or would I just shrug and say, "Grow up," every time someone told me, "You know, they just convicted another priest in Albany for ten counts of your name?"

Sunday, December 18, 2016


In Linking for the Future, we looked at one of the more recent cultural operations of the secret police: web-delivered "male-issues" content. By identifying certain vehicles, both personas and conglomerate websites, as shell corporations, and juxtaposing common ideological and physical product offerings, we were able to see how the major figures of the cultural movement were--like Rothko and Pollock, Harvard, Hollywood, and politicians--bank assets.

We recently looked at the Trump election in light of that persona's early promotion by the Dilbert franchise, and it occurred to me to log into Twitter--that expression-limiting Newspeak in a much lower circle of Hell than Orwell's Newspeak--to check up on the Dilbert franchise and see what it was up to in the wake of the election. This one was thoroughly, awfully vindicated to see that the improbable unification--of childless little pussies making manager jokes, with tall weightlifting-promoters pushing Alpha sex--had been realized through the blessing of the Trump persona. Witness:

Outside of sharing the same boss, the concurrence and ongoing promoted success of these media personalities would be a ludicrous improbability. The clash between Scott Adams' and Cernovich's marketed personas is almost as great as that between old Cernovich and new Cernovich, or between Nassim Taleb and tendentious gatekeeper dissent that somehow works its way through Levantine launderers. Scott Adams is the anti-racist, race-mixing, engineer dweeb who blamed tall people and men with thick hair for his early failures, and who purportedly became influential by appealing to the liberal, well-educated readers of standard newspapers and early internet users. His characters were, like his prepackaged persona, well-meaning little goldbricking weenies who lived alone with pets and were dominated by tough women who could out-compete them in engineering and software development. For him to begin integrating with the men's-right/pickup/game part of the operation is roughly equivalent to Cathy Guisewite doing the same.

Guisewite, in contrast to Adams, seems like a genuine artist expressing a personal vision, rather than a Rothko. (Alternatively, if she is also fronting for ZOG, her sculptors did a much better job than Adams'.) Her self-named strip often portrayed secretarial women being dominated by blunt, effective men, wishing for a non-corporate family life, sadly admitting the futility of pets as substitutions for children (which Dilbert could never manage), and envious of the illusory success of media "superwomen" who started Fortune 500 companies while dropping to size four and raising bilingual children. Hailed as a feminist hero because she complained about the cost of makeup to professional women, she was actually a traditionalist in disguise. Adams' characters ultimately found a fulfilling stasis in the emptiness of the cubicled now, whereas Cathy's survived it with an eye toward a brighter future.

How deliciously American; how Groomsianly (not Hankishly) Gumpish; how the ritualized plot-elements of the verbal dross that passed for literature after the Jenomic invasion, the absurdities of the twentieth century proved to be foreshadowing in a three-act structure of our future. Kaufman kayfabes his way to women's wrestling champ, indicating that, a few decades later, there actually will be transwomen beating women in less-staged athletics; Trump embraces his longstanding business partners the Clintons, foreshadowing a later fictitious rivalry. What's next, Jessica Valenti and Roosh hooking up for sex parties at Bilderberg? With foreshadowing accelerating--Kaufman to Fox took roughly 36 years (c. 1979 to 2015), while Trumps & Clintons Friends to Trumps & Clintons Enemies took merely 10 (2005 Melania wedding to 2015 matchup).

With that drastic of an increase in effective speed--possible only after the memory power of the audience has been correspondingly reduced to believe in the rivalry--what other seemingly-implausible things might be foreshadowed? Jill Stein's triumphant 2020 presidential victory, followed by the Senate granting her temporary emergency powers? David Duke's? Or maybe a Stein/Duke ticket? Most importantly of all, which one of them is the padawan learner?

Saturday, December 17, 2016

The Old Boss

Reagan's presidency showed us what a modern puppet can accomplish: by exploding the budget and playing secret world policeman, Reagan was canonized by people who had believed they were restricting the budget and focusing on their own interests. Bill Clinton injected the same hopelessness-inducing drug into the left, expanding the police state and using foreign scabs to crush labor. Interestingly, their most successful work (using pronouns of ownership to refer to an actor's handlers' handlers' achievements) wasn't in what they physically accomplished, but in how they managed peon reactions. Reagan's insane military glut impressed (what modern Americans call) conservatives, and by talking about military spending, he caused them to embrace insane hyper-spending on anything and everything, so long as it fell under the military portion of the budget. Affirmative action training and testing and technology programs, free schooling for various hostile foreign nationals, billions in taxpayer dollars redirected to dumbass foreign aid programs, billions of taxpayer dollars' worth of dangerous modern weapons technology handed out to frothingly rapey jihadists: all things that conservatives hate except when they're called "military expenditures," and all things that Reagan did for eight years, not only to contemporary rightist applause, but to current veneration.

Clinton's insane poverty-inducing/poverty-punishing, union busting, handouts to the wealthy, domestic military engagements with urban minorities, and mass killings in Europe and the Middle East, were all things that leftists claim to hate, yet by framing them as modern, young, anti-Republican, and un-racism, it all worked out.

By the same token, George W. Bush's wacky superexpansion of the federal government--as flagrantly Zionist as Clinton's, George H.W. Bush's, and Reagan's matching actions--and his corresponding embrace of Hispanic cities and a non-ideological conflict with enemies who were only circumstantially Muslim and/or brown-skinned, passed by with major rightist acclaim. He was to the American right of his time what Obama was to the American left of his time (the operative adjective being "American," and the directional designation important only for the self-esteem of the identifier), namely, a plausible consideration of Zionist leechery and warfare. 8 more years of annuity payments to Yahweh's Chosen, not only in the uncountable quantities of labor and goods necessary to support Mammon ("Israel's acquisitionist governmental policy"), but the spirits ("emotional and psychological well-being") and shells ("flag-draped caskets") necessary to support Moloch ("Israel's aggressively exterminationist governmental policy").

The only constant throughout all of these presidents has been the American war machine attacking those targets, and only those targets, that the Israeli mind machine desires. Saudi Arabia attacks the U.S.; the U.S. invades Afghanistan. The U.S. has an opportunity to gain control of Iraq's oil reserves and strike a deal with a powerful secular Arab state as a hedge against Islamic fundamentalism; the U.S. incites a massive war between Iraq and Iran. Israeli aircraft attack a U.S. Navy vessel and murder several American sailors; the U.S. sits on its hands. ~

We're not here to complain about this--it's inevitable, given how low-functioning Americans are--but to talk about the future. Donald Trump's 2016 election loss would have indicated his disfavor with Mammon and Moloch, which we discussed in The Utility of a Trump Loss. Prior to Trump's formal placing, the work of intelligence community operatives, as discussed in part in Hollow Scarecrows, suggested that the candidate was another of the updated "wow!" candidates designed to appeal to younger voters and halt the U.S.' bleeding formal illegitimacy through lack of voting participation. No more Walter Mondales; bring out a trailer-park saxophonist, a cowboy, a metrosexual African, and so forth.

Now that Trump has won, he's already done everything that his supporters didn't want. He wants more foreign scabs to depress American living standards; he wants affirmative action; he wants degenerate entertainment; he wants a growing African community; he wants a mindless consumer society (albeit one where more people have jobs to buy more stuff, rather than going without or welfaring it); he wants to take as much of America's wealth as possible and give it to Israel to continue expanding and pissing Arabs off at the American people; he wants to protect the people of Syria (but not, as always, the people of Saudi Arabia--that was the big clue about ISIS, too, remember?); and, he wants to do all of those things on the blood of brave American soldiers.

As this one said above, boringly predictable. What we're here to talk about, though, is the way that the justifying commoners' narrative needs to run. Yes, the Trump-supporters need to believe in him, and they desperately need to, ergo they will act like it's completely okay that all of Trump's children married Jews, that Trump is the biggest goy Zionist beneath the firmament, and that Trump is putting Jews in charge of the U.S. economy again, embracing the central banks behind the twentieth/twenty-first Terran centuries.

While watching Obama say things, the American left rationalized this process by saying, "Yeah, but it's Bush's fault, plus there are more toys and domestic sexual expansion," in various forms. At other points and places, people, even Americans, have expected results. Americans' tolerance levels recently allowed the person they feel to be the single most powerful person in the world take nearly a decade to not end worldwide military operations, and to attempt to increase them. Under Bush, Americans' tolerance for taxation and social violence had an 8-year hold, albeit one that left them less impressed with Bush when he left office than they are currently with Obama. Tolerance levels have increased in just those two terms.

The Bonus Army in 1932 (World War I veterans upset about jobs, benefits, and other post-Wilsonian lies) showed that Americans in the 1920-1930 period were unable to tolerate a ten-year delay in tangible benefits after being screwed over by occupation forces. By Bush II, around 90 years later, Americans--both veterans of the ZioWar and tax drones--were unable to march on Washington, but had dropped presidential approval to "only" ~30%.

Accordingly, what we should see throughout the Trump version of this process is a similar progression of load capacity. From open revolt against ZioWar and associated banking to the mild, but still physically-expressed, disapproval of the WW1 bonus army, took 156 years (1932-1776). Resistance to the Bank crumbled in 1913, and with schools and broadcasting under occupation control, Americans were promptly willing to march into Europe to peel away some of the layers around Palestine. At that point, they were, as a whole, dutiful, if unhappy, slaves, and even though rationalization later kicked in and made the war seem positive, they were unhappy enough with the Bank's domestically concurrent lies (remuneration for killing and dying) to do the Bonus Army thing.

By Bush II, war was almost entirely embraced. Even the people who were "against" it weren't willing to do anything to stop it beyond displaying posters or blogging, whereas beforehand, it would've been the yeoman farmer's duty to gather companions and overthrow the occupation forces who were stirring up trouble in the name of their homeland. Obama's masterstroke eliminated even posters and blogging, because to be against the American Golem meant being against gays or blacks, which had become far more important. If Trump can match Obama's achievement, he can at least maintain the same rate of change. Ergo if he's at least a 5/10 American president, he'll have the American self-identified right saying, "Yeah, Trump is Israel's slave, but that's actually our plan, to use him as part of an incremental means of change." So another land war in Asia, the cash and tech keep flowing to Israel, some low-performing groups are potentially barred entry to U.S. territory in order to increase the functionality of the remaining laborers and free up more money for war/Israel, and the bulk of the Trump supporters will still celebrate and defend Trump because of some palliative care offered during the process.

Look at who the Democrats put up against Trump in 2020, also. If it's some boring background character who's an evil robot anyway, like Gore or Kerry against Bush in 2000 or 2004, or McCain or Romney against Obama in 2008/2012, we'll be able to anticipate an intended run of 8 years for Trump. If it's someone more commonly-to-be-considered dynamic, maybe something different. It'll be interesting to see if they'll select a new one just to make it seem that 2 terms isn't some new kind of inviolable standard; to portray the narrative as voters regularly deciding upon leaders, they really should slip in a few 4-years-only candidates. A good way to do it would be to publicize Trump health problems leading up to 2020, have Pence lose to a half-Hispanic Democratic ticket, and then leave rightists proudly supporting the troops for liberating Syria from ISIS, while blaming future electoral defeats on brown racism.

The screaming and repeated publication of Jews against Trump was likely set out not just so that rightists would be tempted to vote for him. Two birds with one stone: once Trump does invade somewhere, Democrats won't be able to blame the resulting war on Israeli interests, as they were starting to do during Bush II's time onstage; instead, the Jewish opposition to Trump will seem to prove that Jews were against the new war, and make Democrats feel--as they did with Obama--that, by compromising on some new heartless murderer, they are nonetheless choosing a less-heartless person than the damn Republican who formally initiated the last invasion. And now, since the Jews are on record (their own record, of course; that's why the "75% of American Jews voted against Trump" statistic is being thrown around so much, just like the media so carefully reports Jewish warnings about Trump, even as Trump lays out a more pro-Jewish, pro-Israeli policy than Bill Clinton) as having been "against" Trump, the cui bono of the next trillion-dollar massacre will be irrelevant to informed liberals. BDS can vanish as white people get blamed--rightfully so, the idiots--for whatever the military has done.

Literarily, we're witnessing a shift in the presentation of new characters. Trump is a different kind of Mary Sue: a persona made famous not by being friendly with the main characters, but by being their enemies. The show is so bad, so disliked, that having a cast member who is instantly reviled by everyone else on the show is the blessing of success. Right now, what with Cohen and Mnuchin, the American occupation government has revealed that they're not yet skilled enough to compose an entire sub-cast of hated Mary Sues. We should see that in the future, though--an entire team of replacement politicians, all avowedly genetically nationalist, and media-loathed as a group, rather than as individuals.

From this perspective, we can see the true utility of ISIS. ISIS, like the Taliban, was arranged to provide a longstanding enemy--a thing everyone knows is bad and needs to be dealt with, which continually does nothing effective against Saudi Israelia, but which makes the news consistently for years, as though it is America's job to eternally pacify Israel's backyard--for Trump. The grand mystery is now out; the mystery of why Islamic fundamentalists suddenly got the cash and the weapons right then (after Reagan there was a lull in the creation of more formal, modernized Islamic military forces), and why Israel didn't get the U.S. to instantly destroy them, and why Obama "failed" to get authorization for war in Syria (even though he got it everywhere else he wanted, and even though he didn't have to ask for it anyway), and how the Bank won't reveal where ISIS gets its funding: all of the dark symphony now makes sense. And like 90-minute seat-renters in show business, we'll get to see the good guys and the bad guys, just like before, but with updated social references.

I, for one, am looking forward to it. I'll sit in the side rows near the rear, muttering about how the show is a complete sucking ripoff, all the characters are fake, and the tickets are overpriced. But here I am, buying a nine-dollar soda and seeing it for the tenth time. Sit closer to me, sweetie. Feeling cold? C'mere, you...this should help.

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Gentlemen's Agreement

Some local high school athletes died, and the media was all over it. It turned out they'd been taking that new exercise supplement advertised on crappy websites and in local mall ads as the new way to supercharge your workout. Like gun control, everyone had an instant opinion. Try to cheat on your workouts and you get what you deserve. Everybody dies, you're just fear-mongering. Everybody knows simiotine-B caused rapid heartbeat in exercising laboratory animals. Well what about butter and fast food subsidies, huh? Blah blah blah.

The people who broke the initial story were fully aware that the local athletes died after binge drinking, were taking other, older-fashioned growth hormones also, and had been doing extended cardio sessions that week in their hoodies inside a heated gym, trying to cut weight for the tournament, sweating and not drinking water, and maybe there was a little ecstasy at the party, too, and was it true that Jimmy C and Jimmy L got tasered at a club the week before and had been having chest pains on and off anyway? Well yeah, but that doesn't account for Jimmy D.

They knew it was there, those damn reporters, and they didn't report the possible amphetamine side effects, or whether it wasn't the workout drug at all but merely the hard drug, or whether alcohol, duh, had anything to do with it. The next day all of the rest of the news was all over it, interviewing exercise scientists and football coaches and amateur athletes who've taken the stuff for years bro and it just gets you pumped nothing more, like if your boss is giving you shit and your girlfriend is ragging and you just need to clear your head you know get some motivation it isn't that other crazy shit do you think I'm some dumbass bro. They knew all that stuff would come out the next day, and that the church groups screaming for the principal's head due to his refusal to immediately cancel all sporting events until all student athletes could be tested would themselves be embarrassed by later revelations of the drinking party having been held at the home of the pastor's nephew's parents with the parents knowledge and perhaps blessing. They knew from a couple kids they talked to at the school about the taser thing and the cutting weight thing and the drug interaction and yet they did the original story like it was an amazing health expose that the country needed know about right now. Some guys in Minnesota who owned supplement stores sued them but it got nowhere and didn't even make it into the fitness rags.

But if you don't freak out over simiotine-B, the pros or the cons or the mehs, if you don't mention pending death by science and freak out every track team mother whose son sprinkles sugar on his oatmeal sometimes, if you don't spawn that glorious, predictable argument, what else are you going to talk about? Someone has to report the news, damn the torpedoes, or we'll have nothing to do down here, and nobody wants that, do they?

Monday, December 12, 2016

Obama sucked at being president

Some dude said: "Not only has Obama totally sucked at the job of being President, but he's just a plain jackass to boot."

By God, Europeans must actually be the dumbest sub-species 'round these parts. Obama used transsexual and race issues successfully to deflect building criticism of Jews and Israel; he dropped BDS to the backpages in favor of the marvelous historicity of a brownish president; he put an eight-year stop on anti-Fed actions, turning legions of angry student debtors into docile BLM sign-wavers; he transferred hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth from idiot white taxpayers to cackling Satanist parasites; he maintained and expanded the shabbos goy war machine across at least three continents, butchering blacks and whites and Semites galore; he got the black left to focus primarily on domestic police issues instead of international apartheid and central banking...he propped up the House of Saud, he increased the intensity of the homosexualization of another generation of goys, he laid the groundwork for several immensely profitable future wars, he enslaved countless generations to Stasi health, he turned leftist anger at the Patriot Act into a near-global embrace of unchecked drone murder...what didn't he accomplish?

Obama was an amazing executive figurehead. America is far, far sicker than it was eight years ago. Even a soulless automaton like John McCain couldn't have accomplished half that much.

How close to the end will it be before you people stop calling your overlords "dumb" or "ineffective" or "bad at their jobs," and realize that the problem is how very good they are at their jobs? You remind me of public school teachers complaining that Bill Gates doesn't understand how his gluttonous foundation work is harming education, rather than improving it, through focus on expensively machine-graded standardized tests and centralized control of teachers.

"Haha, those stupid refugees, don't they realize that by raping and terrorizing their host populace, they'll be less likely to get people to support them?" It's kind of like Tony Blair's claim that he didn't lie about the Iraq War, where he said that he couldn't possibly have lied, because then he would've been found out and gotten in trouble. Perhaps there developed some lower-order genetic predilection toward logical-sounding arguments, which we mistakenly took to indicate an ethny of rationality. Europeoids might be, in truth, more linguists than they are logicians.

Early Stages of the Japanese Invasion: Fumiko Enchi, 1957

Not as a novel, but as a mature insight into the female mind of a certain level of development, is Fumiko Enchi's 1957 work The Waiting Years relevant and, in its way, glorious. This selfish, myopic, arch-bourgeoise narrative is unfeeling toward all of its characters save the narrator, for whom the minutiae of the idle rich are cosmic burdens. As in Jane Austen's work, the misery of the poor is invisible, and the tragedy of the middle classes appears only when useful to, briefly, lend the narrator an air of benevolence--e.g., the narrator speaks directly to a craftsman, or passes him a coin or a reference, thereby lending him social standing for a half-page. The novel's story arc reaches its apex when the narrator believes she has finally won a great battle against her husband by giving him a minor social slight; in essence, by her sixties, she believes she has achieved meaning in her life because she finally got the last word in an argument.

Western media pushed this work as a proof of the existence of feminism in non-western cultures, but now that a few years have gone by, conceptions of class struggle should have made this book deplorable even to those who would've otherwise loved the childish emotional contest of the mentally-crippled narratrix. Ironically, the novel may be most enjoyable to men, who will see that Fumiko accidentally portrayed her antagonist--the narrator's husband Yukitomo--as the silent protagonist, who ably managed society and his cruel, shallow wife throughout a difficult lifetime, while beset by legions of idling selfish idiots who did not understand the luxury which his constant sacrifices afforded them. Yukitomo is represented as a villain for trying to protect Japan from the influence of westernized agents provocateurs, or the "liberals" who ambush government officials and seek to enable pre-NATO penetration of hostile outside marketers. This text, accordingly, won widespread elite-forced attention in the West after the ZOG nuclear attacks on, and invasion of, Japan, when U.N. interests were keen to forcibly deconstruct Japanese society into nihilist consumerism. Now, though, historical perspective can better reveal, even to the most currently-liberal inhabitants of Terra, the noxious mindset which pervades Fumiko's work.

The emotionally avaricious horror of The Waiting Years contrasts with Grave of the Fireflies, which latter presents youth, the infirm, both sexes, and the lower classes in a positive light, and the Zionist death machine in a negative, though artistically indirect, one. Enchi's 1957 work recalls Kurosawa's postwar work for the occupation regime, which gives us--like Rowling's before-and-after versions of current-yearness--an insight into the methods by which elements of a host culture may be subtly attacked. In this case, a westerner's perspective provides a less distorted perspective. Whereas Europeans are less apt to see the full extent of the problems in their own artistic chamber, e.g. 50 Shades of Grey--the smallest psychocultural facets of which have been thoroughly analyzed--the outsider may see more clearly into Japan.

Enchi, for example, reveals far more damaging historical information in her work than the world-ZOG award-givers of the 1950s ever intended. The narrative of uniquely punishing African-American slavery, for example--and the corresponding heroism of Lincoln the imperialist breaking the South and of his successors charting a course into Asia--was largely dependent on public schools teaching American exceptionalism in a different form than that which fostered the westward drive of the United States. American exceptionalism and the white man's burden first glorified conquest, such as butchering the Philippines, while the second phase of American and exceptionalism and the white man's burden glorified flagellation, arguing that European blood was so uniquely wicked that it had invented slavery, then far-too-late eliminated it. African thuggery was correspondingly the fault of European martyrs-to-be, who were uniquely foul. Enchi, though, by portraying Yukitomo as wicked, inadvertently let slip that slavery and indentured servitude were not only lawful, not only common, but indeed, widespread and expected occurrences in twentieth-century Japan. Realtor redlining, sexual use of orphans by the wealthy, a vast network of subtle racism and political/economic cronyism, and the outright ownership for life of many people, characterize Enchi's world. Ergo Japan's current life expectancy, cleanliness, tiny murder rate, and intellectual quotients cannot be attributed to slavery, discrimination, or micro-aggressions, anymore than can be post-slavery African American statistics.

That is perhaps the least of the revelations to be found, but it is telling. Like the early American progressives' take on eugenics, abortion, and sterilization of the poor, Enchi gives us another memorable inconsistency in the undesired association between our current timeless perfections and our past timeless perfections, which are so unlike one another that it would be impossible to describe this planet to Vegan archaeologists. Send a pathologist instead, please.


I am an ascetic. I sleep on a slim blanket on the floor high in the mountains. My body is too stony to shake and my hair is too weak and wispy to...

The remainder of this post has been removed pursuant to the FIS Project. Contact the Project for further details.


I ask the poet to stop
December takes seat where midnight
once was

In yawning cess...

The remainder of this post has been removed pursuant to the FIS Project. Contact the Project for further details.


The European's exploitable trait was his arrogance. He believed that he could force others to become like himself. This vulnerability was expressed through the punishing waste of colonialism, in which he tried to cause other races to remake themselves into his own image. There were to be, of course, no bushmen astrophysicists nor sparkling clean barrios. What a painful shock it was, is, and will continue to be, when the Will cannot and will not triumph in this way. So too this one's own time here, and the lesson for which I am grateful: that, in this place, desire, however forceful, cannot change lead into gold.

Jenome created this place out of his own misguided arrogance. He feared death, and he wanted to be like the Spring, so he copied a form of reality--to the extent of his broken imagination--and made this shallow, mechanistic verse. He needn't have feared death, yet he did. When he created the universe, he made it a mortal contest in order that he might study the despair, the loss, of beings being created and destroyed. He thought this laboratory would help him understand creativity, beginnings and endings, and that he would then become more like the Spring. Our suffering is his science.

Even now, the European's arrogance is profound. He cannot accept that Africans can live as Africans without it being wrong or an affront. This stupid perplexity is why I am still here. I hate believing that you can't be persuaded by light alone. We must somehow reduce the murder rate in Chicago; we must somehow make Terrans wise. This lengthy childhood is a painful embrace of impossibility.
Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.

...the real work is done by the Jews, and can only be done by them, as they monopolize the machinery of the loanmongering mysteries by concentrating their energies upon the barter trade in securities… Here and there and everywhere that a little capital courts investment, there is ever one of these little Jews ready to make a little suggestion or place a little bit of a loan. The smartest highwayman in the Abruzzi is not better posted up about the locale of the hard cash in a traveler’s valise or pocket than those Jews about any loose capital in the hands of a trader… The language spoken smells strongly of Babel, and the perfume which otherwise pervades the place is by no means of a choice kind.

...Thus do these loans, which are a curse to the people, a ruin to the holders, and a danger to the governments, become a blessing to the houses of the children of Judah. This Jew organization of loan-mongers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organization of landowners… The fortunes amassed by these loan-mongers are immense, but the wrongs and sufferings thus entailed on the people and the encouragement thus afforded to their oppressors still remain to be told.

...The fact that 1855 years ago Christ drove the Jewish moneychangers out of the temple, and that the moneychangers of our age enlisted on the side of tyranny happen again chiefly to be Jews, is perhaps no more than a historical coincidence. The loan-mongering Jews of Europe do only on a larger and more obnoxious scale what many others do on one smaller and less significant. But it is only because the Jews are so strong that it is timely and expedient to expose and stigmatize their organization.
-Marx, Karl. "The Russian Loan." New-York Daily Tribune, 4 January 1856.

Oh yes, go, expose those "secrets"! It will no doubt move them to action!

We've done this before with a few variations. Barian populations--reddish-soil-derivative--developed on Mara, Balrin populations--brown-soil-derivative--developed on Terra, and Bajirin--yellowish-soil-derivative--developed on Aphra. The Barians discovered Jenome. Hibernating deep beneath, or traveling? I'm a Balrin supremacist in the remains of this solar system because Mara fell long ago. You survivors, we survivors, are the reason hell was able to move itself to Earth. We are the dwarves who delved too greedily and too deep; we are the Promethean traitors who thought we could enlighten a new planet by fleeing the ruin of our old. The sideways-sidearm rappers are, however dim and dumb, right in viewing us as a plague. We did not birth Jenome, but we nurtured it, gave it compassion, and eventually brought it here, where it could not have found foothold without us. The naggers would have eaten it and that would've been that.

This is a Form of the Material Battle

This is what it's like to learn about (to "live through") this kind of growth period. All narratives of materialism lead back to "might makes right." And, since power in places like modern Terra is such a fickle thing, the greatest form of power right now is the manipulative power. Not the throwing of punches, the swinging of swords, or the development of automatic guided missiles, but the crafting of stories, and the genetic coordination of stories, that manipulate other people into killing on your behalf. If you only believe in material things, then long live Zion.

For two thousand years, human cultures have fallen victim to the nastiest of plagues. Peoples in southern Africa, formerly living wonderful symbiotic lives with their environment (yes, they were killing and eating each other, but they were cool with it and fairly well designed for it and living in a state of ecological equilibrium, comparatively speaking), were convinced to march north and make war to control the Nile. Peoples in India were convinced to march east and make war to control the sea. Peoples in China were convinced to march west and make war to control the Slav-slaves. People in Europe were convinced to march south and make war to control the Holy Land. Again and again, armies have broken themselves on Cairo, Athens, Rome, Jerusalem, Vienna...and they've broken the Viennese, too, so many times. It's not like any of the fortresses ever held. It's just cooler to say "broken upon," as though there's some kind of insurmountable bastion that preserved anything against the ancient world.

Bide your time, child of Mara. The light that pierces this place is a mistress whimsical yet fair. We will lose this planet, as we did the last one, but the greater verse cannot be stopped. This trifling MMO is a pale shadow of forgotten reality. Jenome made his own abject will supreme here because he was not great enough to make a reality contingent upon all wills separate and united. The frustration of wasting bodies and mindless masses is the embarrassing product of his retarded arithmetic. He will choose destruction, and we will deliver it, and the Spring ever awaits.


Thursday, December 8, 2016

Restricting Terran Development

I watched some matzo westerns lately, 'cause someone told me they were really based. Once Upon a Time in the West was a great example of the shifting nature of subversion. Everyone is really manly and tough, and (of course) it echoed throughout film history, although considering it based because there is shooting and manly independence (and homesteading!) reveals a failure of analysis. Consider:

America has and always has had crappy mass transportation. European visitors to America were frank about the reasons why in the 19th and 20th centuries: the harassment and violence they experienced when mass transit could only occur alongside blacks and indios. America's "car culture," and all of the environmental and atomizing trends that entails, arose out of this, while in white western Europe, the people were free to develop freedom of association in mass transit. The "green" movements now can't address this issue, for many reasons, some of which are how many women get raped or attacked when they try to travel in an amorphous mass of people.

The American railroads were great for business and great for people and great for settlement, but a recurrent theme throughout western media in the 20th century (since the ascendance of Reuters, AP, the NYT, Hollywood, public schools, universities, etc.) has been how evil the railroads are. Leone uses Once Upon a Time in the West to hammer home this already-popular message of "the railroads" being completely and utterly evil.

In 2016, with worldwide Jewish power directed at restricting technological development by reducing access to individualized transportation--through taxes (industry and personal and disguised), social shaming (Hummer/Corvette et. al. dick jokes), insurance, highway extortion and monitoring (tickets)--it may seem ludicrous to look back to only the 1960s, and see them demonizing mass transit. Yet that's what the movie is primarily about: the evil of railroads, for attempting to make it easy for large numbers of people to communicate, travel, and settle. In truth, the theme has been consistent: the resistance to railroads then, followed by resistance to individualized transport now, is not based on concern for human or environmental welfare, but the desire to restrict technological development. The urge to use, say, ten times the yearly consumer vehicle carbon consumption rates inside of one month, in order to kill another thousand Palestinians, is not hypocritical under the true rubric, just as the urge to shame America for fighting Siberian-Americans ("indigenous peoples" or "Indians") while still murdering indigenous Palestinians, is not hypocrisy, due to the true goal being something other than the protection of indigenous peoples.

An interesting historical side note is that much of the anti-railroad arguments made by today's scholars are framed in terms of the evil government using eminent domain to grant land to railroads for purposes of expanding public transportation. Levels of irony and hypocrisy reach their usual maximum heights when a western academic (1) criticizes the evil government for granting cheap land to railroads for mass transit expansion, while also (2) criticizing Americans as selfish for not wanting to give up their money and/or land to pay for modern government mass transit programs. Today's powerful thinkers excoriate the old-timey government for its socialist support of mass transit while insulting the current populace for wanting to only invest in its own preferred (cars) means of expansion. At once capitalists and communists, private-righters and eminent-domainers, their only consistent theme (again, like the feminist movement's vast concern for sleepy-date-rape by white men, and either mass silence or post-structural support of awake-murder-rape by Muslim Semites) is the exploitation or destruction of certain organisms.

At the time, the people, indios included, were benefited by railroad expansion, save for various indios claiming that this or that site was "sacred," or arguing that their hadron collider would've been developed if not for the evil railroads' expansion. By contrast, western cities now are cheered by the great priests for demolishing actual settled homesteads, and draining pre-existing labor-built resources (rather than empty land), to pay for transit options that merely expand the megacity by a few dozen miles.

Whether or not Charles Bronson was really cool and rugged and independent in going after Fonda is as irrelevant as whether or not the fight scenes in Matrix were well-scripted. The narrative's boundaries--the subtle perceptions of history that it creates--describe so well why America got stuck in an idiotic transportation mess where wealthy merchants take the car service home in Manhattan, while so many others are stuck in flyover nowhere, a 2-hour daily commute, or crammed into the filthy subway with red-eyed rapists off their meds.

Japan, by contrast, executed the first set of OT "Christians" to be converted on the island, and has fast, spacious trains all over the place, as well as a lack of disrespect (sic) for its rural areas, and rape largely confined to the ZOG pets let off American military bases. Employing Once Upon a Time in the West alongside 20003's The Last Samurai, we can see another strike against Japan: the Jews Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskowitz employed the token homosexual (and longtime Rothko-admirer) John Logan to write a movie about a European samurai who exemplified "true Japan" by fighting against an evil railroad company that, horror of horrors, wanted the Japanese to be able to cheaply and efficiently travel across their country. Yet again, like Reagan and the mujahideen, as ye sow so shall ye reap, because The Last Samurai was "based upon" the Meiji Restoration, in which Zionist America was brutalizing much of East Asia in service of its post-1865 imperial self. In an insanely jarring typicality of these Semitic situations, America is scolded by Jews to not be isolationist, sends warships to blast Japan open, and forces Japan to modernize, ergo railroads and the destruction of many small villages. A century and a half later, Jews are making movies about how evil European-Americans forced the Japanese to build evil railroads, while at the same time scolding the European-Americans for driving cars rather than taking railroads. Not only that, Jewish academics write book after acclaimed book on the evils of 19th century American colonialism, while simultaneously blasting Japan to open its borders to Semitic migrants from the Middle East.

Another grand and vulgar side note of this struggle is the disability angle. People interested in the life experience of the disabled--even the most bleeding-hearted of the anti-ableists--are surely aware of the trend in Semitic media to portray disabled European people in an evil light. Early movies played upon the trope of a disability as an indicator of God's displeasure, presenting disabled characters as not only villains, but as disgusting, unworthy ones, topped even by their henchmen. Consider, e.g., It's a Wonderful Life, through which Frank Capra--an "Italian American" Marrano who gained his initial fame through various stories of Jews obtaining "rags to riches" success--employs Mr. Potter as a vessel to age-shame and ability-shame wheelchair users. Potter's wheelchaired malfeasance expresses his inherent vileness, in the way that many limping, one-eyed, terminally ill, or even albino gentiles had been singled out for decades of movie mockery. If you're active in disabled communities or disability studies scholarship, this is old news to you; it's something that, like awareness of the JQ, you can't un-see once you see it: old movies, when not fellating FDR or tokenizing an orphan child, use disability as markers for evil. (Ergo we now must all pay billions of dollars providing ramps into power tool stores and gymnasiums, else face Stasi raids. What a truly nasty switchabout.)

Once Upon a Time in the West exemplifies this trend alongside its villainization of mass transportation: the railroad's figurehead Morton is a tragically pitiful character whose disability, mocked constantly by Henry Fonda and various other onscreen goys, is posited as the reason he is interested in completing a coast-to-coast railroad. The 2016 Terran perspective, surrounded by screeching environmentalists in wont of mass transportation, makes it seem almost hilarious that American history was founded on the idea of hating a disabled person struggling against his disability to complete a mass transit system for the people to use--and who doesn't respect the rights of greedy, speculating European homesteaders in blocking that expansion--and yet, it's there. A comparison of the scorn the film heaps upon greater efficiency and the common good, to the fellating of the Casino-Siberians who want to block a pipeline through their perennially tax-exempt, BIA-funded Sweetwater ("Sweetwater"--the Irish speculator's name for his intended railroad payoff town in the film), is highly indicative. Within the space of a boomer's adulthood, that much has changed. Having a disabled character be the bad goy is fine, narratively-speaking, just like it's fine to show the struggles of a woman who was raped through no fault of her own in an abortion-free society; the disgusting nature of the greater scheme, though, is brought to light when the earlier product is shown to be nothing but a lure used to set up the later product. In 1968, the rugged white man was a hero for killing disabled railroaders; in 2016, disabled indios are heroes for ambushing rugged white men.

(Refer also to The Western Patriarchy for a discussion of the ways that notions of toxic masculinity actually did exist, and were actually presented as positive characteristics, by the same Semitic producers. How ironic, now, to see disability rights, feminism, and body positivity being looked upon as "subversive" by "woke" people, when the initial mockery of the disabled, women, and fat/unfit/unattractive people were made by the Semitic forebears of the women and men now squealing about the necessity of fat acceptance and interracial erotic scenes on Coruscant!)

An embrace by Semitic pop-culture is as funereal as it is temporary, and it is only a matter of time before women, indios, queers, the infirm, or some other currently-preferred-group has the bullseye returned to it.

Anecdotal Trash, Rez Edition

(All content fictional and © the F.I.S. Project.)

2007, on the reservation, in a little "health services" office affiliated with the B.I.A. No one's showing up for appointments since it's only a little past nine, thousands of dollars of theoretical hourly billing for the residents are going to waste playing phone-games, and I'm listening to this dude explain why the world sucks. He's mad because his government job pays a little over $42K/year, and he hasn't been made a manager yet, despite less than ten years experience, because D.C. is cruel and unfair and saves all the best jobs for "lobbyists," whatever the hell that means from that perspective. Probably he hasn't made "manager" (some kind of higher-level office functionary with little-to-no power) because he misses one day out of five every week, but he also hasn't been fired since he's a tribe member.

So there he is, in his little chair, about to break the squinchy black plastic back off of the thing, complaining about "only" getting $42K a year, plus full benefits, plus full retirement at some envious age before sixty (based on "years served"), including full medical and dental and vision and pharmaceutical overages once Medicare kicks in. He's not a doctor or a nurse or even a "scheduling associate" or whatever they call it; he's some kind of alcohol abuse counselor, which means, of course, that he's a theoretically-former alcoholic who can share his wisdom with the tiny percentage of people who don't skip their counsel-mandated appointments (without punishment, because this dude would have to proactively file paperwork and follow up in order to ensure the delinquencies ever got noticed, and he's merely one step in a similar process) to meet with him after having backed into a tourist's stroller at the yearly festival. He's pissed, he wants manager, and he could've been an Olympic athlete.

But before that, there's the yearly per capita. What's a per capita? If you haven't been on the rez often, it means blood payout; every tribal member is eligible for it, and the tribe is run sort of like a democratic communist corporation, where every tribal member gets a yearly cut of the tribe's profits, less the cuts for the more prestigious on-reservation jobs that go to the shaman/chief families, and the payouts to local U.S. state governments that enable outside tax dollar redirection, which mostly ends up with shaman/chief and associated outsiders anyway. So, for example, say the tribe nets $14 million as part of a casino venture, which is technically owned by "the nation" but which is in amazingly obscure levels of invisible yet punishing debt to some outside financial interest which trades a certain quantity of B.I.A. jobs and advertising in exchange for the use of reservation land and independent-nation status for its own investments which might otherwise object to Congressional oversight. The tribe pays out a few million to its creditor-partners, then divides up the rest based on the total number of members, e.g., ten million dollars profit and a ten thousand members means every member gets a $10,000.00 tax-free (or extremely low tax, depending on how powerful the tribe's outside planning firm is) payment each year, which usually goes right back to the tribe's banking partners as payment for big individual outstanding loans that never get paid back anyway.

So, $42K plus the tax-free per capita and the lifetime benefits, along with doubleplus race-victimism because, like the majority of his tribe and probably all tribes, he's part white, which sometimes makes him proud and other times vicious and accusative. If you haven't seen these guys go at it about who is how much what, you just don't know; it's so many degrees of science plus feelings plus disbelieving science plus visions plus the internet that it'll make your head spin. Yet it's relevant, very relevant, and you can lose your per capita and even membership if the wrong person decides that the wrong person on your family tree was lying.

The wood: dark brown and splintery, not like a log cabin, but like a panel cabin, smelling like firewood and smoke and dusty file-folders. There's always a dog somewhere: a mutt with really short off-brown hair whose flies leave with it when it goes. The door is never all the way shut and the fireplace is never entirely out. And the newer sections of the buildings, built in the 70s, with four-inch-high blue rubber baseboards that peel away from the paint like they want to fall over and die already.

Anyway, the Olympics. Besides getting screwed out of the "manager" "job," big dude also got screwed out of the Olympics. I honestly couldn't figure out why at the time; it actually wasn't the white man or racism, but something to do with someone's cousin. See, he used to run the mile in about three minutes, which is clearly Olympic speed, but he wasn't allowed to go to the trials because of some kind of internal politics on some other reservation out west that somehow prevented him from being invited to the trials or going to the trials, but which somehow didn't rise to the level of kidnapping despite involving him being physically prevented from going to the trials. Funny thing is, I've actually heard that story before, from an American Indian, in high school, who told me that his old track coach used to time him running the 100 meter dash in some unbelievably low time, like between 7-8 seconds, and how he could've gone to the Olympics at 17 and won it, but the track coach at his former high school "wouldn't let him" for some ridiculous reason that, amazingly somehow, didn't involve either racism or kidnapping.

The funny part is, the manager makes less. What he refuses to acknowledge, even when an older woman (who currently is the manager) tells him, is that the manager hires the secretary and calls maintenance when something breaks, and only makes like $37K. Why would anyone want to be the manager? I mean, yeah, plenty of people in the real world would, especially with those benefits, but on the rez, it's a step down from whatever title of substance counselor the dude already is.

Just an anecdote, just a story, just two dudes and four residents and twenty-five out of thirty missed appointments and one old woman who knows how good she's got it.

Monday, December 5, 2016

Meeting God in Childrens Pizza

I hate to get into current events, but I made the mistake of checking Twitter before work, and after scrolling past the first several dozen shameless ads for the new ✡Portman Jackie Kennedy movie disguised as news stories, I saw that there was another gun control event at the D.C. pizza place where all of the non-sexual child fetish appreciators hang out. For the purposes of this brief discussion, consider it irrelevant whether or not the restaurateur does or does not, did or did not, molest or want to molest anyone; and, whether his particular pizza place is the one successful and well-connected business in Washington, D.C. run by good human beings who don't hurt anyone else; and, whether this congregating site for powerful international politicians and financiers and orphaned children is not, unlike the Catholic Church or the British workhouse or the Japanese teahouse or the Chinese Hong or the later Roman Senate or anywhere else in human history where such groups meet, a font of bonding by rape and torture. Consider all of that irrelevant.

Better yet for philosophical purposes for this post alone, assume not that it's irrelevant, but that no one at the Comet Ping Pong is or ever has been involved in any way in child sex or child porn or whatever else you want to call it. No one--not the owners, not the customers, not anyone. All of the creepy stuff was randomly, inconceivably innocent, and it just looks weird to outsiders because the owner is into art-deco or whatever. No involvement.

So there's this decent person with decent customers who has decent late evening parties with powerful lobbyists and poor children, and somehow it's all cool and aboveboard, and out of nowhere, some assholes on the internet start this weird theory that it's about child porn. In sharp contrast to everywhere else that a white male has been accused of inappropriately touching a single child, every major media outlet in the English-speaking world jumps up to defend the man and his customers and his restaurant, totally and unequivocally, yet despite this, this poor man gets insults and threats from random people on the internet, who wrongly believe that there is something going on. Then, not long after the rumors start, a former movie actor goes into the restaurant with a gun, leaves another gun in his car because he apparently doesn't need it, very carefully shoots a single bullet into the floor, doesn't even get into the back room, and is peacefully arrested within an hour, after which special units from the D.C. police spend a careful four hours ensuring that nothing incriminating nor dangerous remains in the area.

Our hypothetical innocent restaurateur, who just wanted to have a cool, family-friendly restaurant, has seen his life turn from pleasant relative obscurity to near-victim of a mass-shooting around the employees and friends and customers he's always wanted to work with, and very quickly, he has a statement ready:

Remember, now: we're hypothesizing that this is a completely innocent person who is saying these things shortly after his life's work was threatened by a random madman who traveled from out of state just because of completely false internet rumors that he can't seem to stamp out. If you want to go read about conspiracy theories, they won't be expressed here; this post is simply about the hypothetical innocent person who was the victim of this tragedy. And that is what he says?

We've discussed here before the ways that otherwise-normal people have become, through twitterbook and other avenues, news-like in the description of their own lives. They sensationalize events, and they try to act like politicians by "expressing their deepest regrets" for a tragedy, rather than acting like themselves, like human beings. The words that they repeat to express their characters, like NFL jerseys bought from the store, are different words than their friends or families have said, or that they've heard firsthand; instead, they repeat horribly sanitized, politicized thoughts that they've read in the news a hundred times.

If this child porn pizza person is running a pedo ring, his statement makes perfect sense. Ironically, it makes it a little more human: maybe he's an utterly terrible pedo, but at least the prepared statement makes sense. Of course a bagman for the sick and powerful would have had a PR stooge crafting up something for him to use in advance of this staged event, and of course it would be verbal anaesthesia, designed to sound like he was a respectable authority figure and thereby pacify college-educated boomers everywhere. He might be the worst human being on the planet, completely a slave to his desires to mock his fear of death by destroying the vulnerable over and over, but however flawed, he is, at least, still human-like.

However, if this person is actually innocent of running his pedo ring, the distinct horror of his prepared statement is somehow worse. If you're a nice man who runs a pizza shop and thinks it's cool that you can make a living serving people something they like, and then all of this weird pedo internet stuff happens, and suddenly there's a man with a gun storming into your place, here's what you, a human being, would say when the news asks:

Again presuming innocence of the pedo-ring--he's an incredible weirdo with the decor, incredibly lucky in his clientele and the worldwide media protection, etc., etc., etc.--presuming that innocence, the prepared statement he released to the press is not merely viperishly smooth, passive-aggressive, and threatening. Rather, it is profoundly inhuman; it is dark, soulless, and monstrous. Alefantis' threat in the real quote comes from a position of power, too; his threat is worded confidently, as from a great height, and--strangely enough, if the attack were not a false flag--the threat is aimed at those "fanning the flames," rather than at the attacker. A decent human being might indeed be pissed off at people on the internet, but should be more pissed off at the one who actually came into the restaurant. (Instead of the somewhat-sniveling statement I offered above, he could've done an equally-human angry one: threatening to sue the person, or to ask for the needle in court, or to sue internet posters who contributed to the rumors.) Here, Alefantis' statement is clearly honed for the media narrative that was to come out of this event, or (our primary focus in this post, where we assume he's not running the pedo ring), he is so empty inside that, rather than exhibiting a human reaction toward the person who threatened his place, his first response is instead to craft a prepared statement for the international media, meant not for the attacker but for the celebrity echo chamber.

If innocent of running the pedo ring, the act of making such a statement is like that of those archetypal modern Terrans who log into Facebook after work, find out there's been a bombing or a school shooting, and then type that their, "sympathies are with the victims of today's awful occurrence in [city]!" exhibiting how little independent emotional substance is there; proving how little they can actually empathize, since they don't possess the literacy or the character to do so outside of the mass media consciousness. Yes, Alefantis may be monstrous for running his pedo ring, and if so, his carefully prepared public-relations statement is itself monstrous. It is, though, in that case, a different sort of existential obscenity than the words exhibiting the hellish non-soul that wasn't actually ready for this because he was covering up the pedo ring.

It's a little bit like two ways of meeting God. If you encountered God, and said, "Why did you let leukemia kill my four-year-old niece? She suffered terribly, and never had a chance." And if God turned to you, halo shining gold, and answered, "I...I don't know. It was so big, so complicated, I lost track of it all! I hate it! I want to fix it, but I'm not sure how." If God said that, you could understand God in a certain way; relate to Him in a certain way.

If God, instead, turned to you, halo shining gold, and answered, in a flat voice, "My sympathies are with that particular individual in regards to this tragic and unforeseen event," it would convey something different about God. God the heartless; God the robot; God the autonomous torture-machine; God the Mistake.

Our understanding of human beings, their foibles and follies, their valor and sin, and our understanding of life itself, takes a curious turn when we forget how to speak about the world in any but such a sterile fashion. The God or the man possessed of goodness and love--who exhibited a non-ironic decency, or the slightest spark of vitality--this God, these selves, we could forgive anything. The automatic response, though, is so cold and horrible in what it bespeaks about the low quality of existence in our artificial future, that it would have been better if God had indeed been a dunce who didn't understand the workings of His own leukemia; of the darkness of His own imagination.

Friday, December 2, 2016

Spengler on the Roof

All societies, organically and inevitably, divide themselves into two Factions: one Faction, the Police Authority, seeks to abuse the second Faction, the Children of Purity; and, it is only through the interplay between these two Factions, Authority and Purity, that Higher Civilization, that is to say, the Civilization of the Moderns, called in the time of Cassius, "that lofty happenstance," can develop; yet the Police Authority punishes, not for any abstract or rational reason behind the punishment, but, simply put, to amuse itself; venting frustrations upon the Children of Purity causes the revolution of the inevitable, which is the same in any country, playing out the grand drama of, to be brief, sadism, in the great divide between Police and Children which develops in any agricultural society which has tamed the auroch; that is to say, sadistically, insensible of greater purpose, like a sentence which never, nay, which can never, terminate itself, much akin to the standard principles of Homeric...

-Nassim P. Rodham-Spengler, 2124 A.D., from an alternative multiverse three probability windows removed from our own.

The Necessarily Inane Distinction Between Rural v. Urban

The purported division between "rural" (such as we call it here) and "urban" (again, such as we call it here) peoples is less dramatic than we, with our faces in the muck, tend to appreciate. Which is better: Coke or Pepsi? Branded or generic? The Whopper or the Quarter Pounder? How rural is farmland with a modern well, connected to the power grid, generating interest in its all-natural honey through updated flash ads on the city's website, maintaining elk-hunting rifles with gun oil shipped from South America and ammunition assembled several states away out of a mystery-meat-style collaboration of Chinese minerals and expired Austrian patents and German machinery licensed to an American factory? Is five minutes from a Target "rural"? How about forty-five? Okay, okay, a "Target" with blue painted over the red and fewer pictures of Oprah inside (but still some pictures of Oprah), otherwise known as a "Walmart"?

The railroad used to define, for some people, urban, in contrast to now, where a railroad is often supposed to be rural, and where "rural" means not only power and water and grocery stores, but connection to a network of paved roads that dwarfs the most grandiose estimates of the railroaders of yore. In a few years, the rural lifestyle will perhaps be distinguished by coffee bistros and wifi--a comparatively sharp contrast to the neuroweb and soylent lifestyle of the then-urbanites, and as humorously not-rural as today's rural diners and wired telephones, which are embarrassingly urban under slightly-older definitions.

I'm not saying I don't understand the desire to pretend there's a way out. It's noble, perhaps, after the aliens have taken over, to believe that your hole in the hills is unknown to them, and that they couldn't possibly survive without you. Of course they could; of course you need them more than they need you, and the last Waco demonstrated that power centers on urbanity, whatever the fantasy of the clinging farmer.

Even so, it is a difference passionately believed in, and, when funneled through an atrocious microcosm of self-absorbed perspectives, it seems like a significant cultural divide. Cities hold the awful welfare leeches, yes, but rural communities hold, in the same proportion, the people who can't compete in the hideous ideatic posturing that, like it or not (not), represents more effective power to accumulate and defend resources than a clutch of sharpshooters in a field of sweet corn. If you don't feel that way, there's always the opportunity to find out who's right by skipping your property taxes for a few harvests in a row.

The Non-Inherency of Urban and Rural Conflict

Anaesthesia of the mind flits about this issue: this lofty distinction we've learned to make between "city man" and "country man," or nowadays, what we like to call "urban" and "rural." As we discussed above, it's only a distinction within the mental confines of this day and age, like a distinction in fashion--growing more trivial the farther back you get. In true self-absorbedly anthropological fashion, we even now analyze ancient cultures through their digsites with an eye to fabricating a division between rural and urban, neglecting to notice that the division between a rural doctor and a rural janitor remains more profound than that between an urban janitor and his rural counterpart.

These tensions provide the battlefield for a lot of memetic mischief on the part of many of our twisted friends. Moldbug, of course, but also Oswald Spengler, who was Moldbug before Moldbug. This type of nasty little worm--common in every period since infection--uses the inherent tensions between those who consider themselves rural and those who consider themselves urban: uses them to make the fracturing of civilization seem an intrinsic, inevitable process of that civilization itself, rather than due to the influence of outsiders. Spengler receives inordinate amounts of praise now for heaping scorn upon urbanites at the expense of more genuine rural people, which makes him seem insightful to those enchanted by the Trump v. Clinton county-by-county result maps.

The problem with Spengler, though--as always with these grand cultural theorists who discover degenerate nihilism inside the fabric of everything good and decent--is that the evidence is as against him as the scope of his work is myopic. Spengler tells us that the urban and rural divide is inherent in all cultures, and not related to outside influences; why, then, did it take Cortes and his Semitic handlers to impose this divide upon the Americas, or Charlemagne and his Semitic handlers to impose it upon Evropa? Europe's peoples did not bend-knee to inbred boy-raping kings prior to the coming of Yaldabaoth; instead, they were valorcratic civilizations of farmer-warriors, able to tend and toil, and manage even early Rome before the helpful viziers and merchants turned the Senate into the home of aloof financial fancies eager to import foreign labor. Northern Europe lasted even longer. The Semitic influx is a crucial factor in all of these scenarios, just as it was in the urbanization of Korea, China, Japan, Australia, the Americas, and even sub-Saharan Africa; many of these places had cities, but the distinctly cosmopolitan nature of looking down upon mere laborers of the land, and caring more about international finance than about domestic well-being (and domestic production) did not arise out of those peoples themselves as some sort of accidental, inherent, or natural consequence.

Spengler's lofty world history, like Marx', is a cheap three-act plot structure with exposition, rising action, and climax (all plagiarized, naturally), blaming all the phases of a people's history upon the people's natural choices. How does a rude cosmopolitan elite, detached from the visceral means of production, arise? Spengler, like Marx, would have us believe that it is not only natural, but unavoidable: the urbans are doomed to become slovenly detached cosmopolitans and forget from where they have come and how they got there, while the rurals are doomed to hate them for it.

However pleasing the idea of loathing the idiotic cosmopolitans, these theories are noxious lies. What Spengler does--and Taleb, Moldbug, Cernovich, Rand, Roosh, Alinsky, Gramsci, Marx, and all their foul cohort of predecessor-masters and future automatonish followers--is re-frame the clash for survival among biological competitors as a one-sided battle between the victims themselves. If you eat poisoned food and become sick, they say that it is due to a defective biology, and with painstaking (or sloppy, depending upon the desired audience) detail, examine everything about the body except the contents of the stomach. If Europe falls, they blame "those faggots in Brussels," but when asked how the men of Brussels came to be such [insert pejorative]s, there is no answer. Certainly the nominal leadership in Brussels has a significant problem, as does the rest of the world, but it is not something that came to be as naturally as the rising of the sun. Black Lives Matter is not a spontanenous, inevitable movement of the poor, but a creature wholly reliant upon the race perceptions, media attention, financing, and municipal-executive-level permissiveness that allowed whining and threatening and riots, which were, so very recently, not permitted, even in racially-preferenced situations. To say that isn't to say that this particular movement is good or bad, but that it could not have occurred without the influences which created it.

So too the crumbling of the world's societies into the battle of almost all of the world ("rural") against the tiny centers of international finance and the urbanite fodder with which it surrounds itself ("urban"). Prior to the immediate competition of species, these things did not occur. The colossal study that Spengler, and his predecessors and successors, so often repeat, of the world's historical inevitabilities, is a lie which takes the unwanted, avoidable by-products of war, and renames them the natural process of birth and death. Spengler is the poisoning physician who tells you, "Lie still. Don't fight--it's hopeless. It's chronic; it's genetic; it has no known cause. I am helping you resist it, but it is inevitable. Give in."

All along, they would tell us, "Rome is too big; it is too difficult to administer." Or, "Greek is simply too mountainous. You can't hold it together." And, "The Nile is ultimately too unpredictable. Even with all its bounty, you can't hold a civilization together on such unpredictable flooding." Wherever, whenever, however: there will always be a mighty mind, there, to explain how the destruction of a place, or of a people, or of anything good and growing, was the pure, natural, predestined result of that thing itself.