/edu/ - Education

>>7808
Bahaha the cuckoldry in this one is strong. Have you not paid attention to the giants of capitalism being plundered in front of your face? Elon Musk's faggotry is standard for CEOs - grift and scam while there is stuff to plunder. Let me guess, you're one of the tards who think Elon is actually good? If so, I don't know what to tell you.

>>7808
The title of "CEO" correlates with a 110 points intelligence quotient and sociopathy. Considering how much mega-corps are actually state subsidized directly and indirectly we have to consider CEO as some kind of welfare recipient.

By the way the average Marxist who actually read the theory correlates with a 150 points intelligence quotient. Please note the "Eye Q" points are not an objective measure of intelligence by any stretch. There is no way to correct for bias and as such it has to be considered unscientific.

The myth that capitalism rewards or harnesses great intelligence is best dismissed by the fact that the upper echelons of highly intelligent people find them selves in the most mundanes of profession far away from decision making. Empirically speaking capitalism promotes mediocrity and negative personality traits related to cruelty and deception.

Success in the market as measured by how much money somebody made is consistent with a random selection and follows a typical statistical thermal distribution as can be found in gas-laws generated by atom bumping into each other at random.
As a famous rock musician once sang: Money !, it's a gas.

You are also pushing an ideologically motivated false dichotomy where business and politics are separate. When in reality politics is mainly about economic interests.

Lastly it usually is the past-time of the spineless who try to suck up to the ruling class by describing them as having flattering traits.
The reality is that class societies rarely put strong and intelligent people into positions of leadership.

Do you think the past three electoral seasons were meant to be Trumps time to shine?
I noticed that despite there being far more qualified candidates for the Republican Party, Trump out-polled every one of them.
Even under indictment, he outperformed.
He is still butthurt about "cheating" despite the allegations coming out against him, some true others false.

I think the past nine years was a cultural era for him to make a swan song of publicity stunting before he croaks.

Men like Trump never like going away quietly. They always wanna make it a big parade.

>>7818
Trump has been boosted and this has the "predictive program" routine all over it. Floating him for decades, floating Arnold Schwarzenegger as "Trump lite" and getting people used to the celebrity politician trope.

Trump didn't get this on his own merits, if you can call them that. Steadily up to June 2016, the last pretenses of the republic were pulled back, and since then, Obama told you he's going to curate your news. That is not a democratic society. That is what dictatorships do. The liberals are done caring, and liberals love running against Trump and going as far right as they can. They'd love to keep running against Trump forever, but all good things must come to an end. If any of this shit were real, the liberals could stop bullshitting, call Trump the retard he is, and cut off his billions in free press. Anyone promoting Trump has been a complete and utter fag and they've shown their extreme faggotry. Anyone who would show any backbone is silenced. The liberals are done with the electoral game, and have been bitching about "populism" and ramming this horrifically unpopular agenda down everyone's throat. Once the Democrats installed Trump as their "loyal opposition", they have pushed forward with what they've always wanted to do. The idea that they are at all beholden to mass politics is insane after they imposed COVID on everyone. I don't know how else to tell people this if they aren't seeing it by now, but if someone doesn't see it by now, they probably want slavery and death and stopped caring about anything else. Eugenics knows no other way.

That all said, I'm guessing the liberals are testing how brazenly they can rig elections. The country will not survive as is. I wouldn't be surprised if they accelerate dramatically after the fifth of November.

>>7822
What's disturbing about Trump is the fact that there's no real opposition against him.
Most of the naysaying liberals are more amused than actually angry
In fact, I encounter more Democrat voters whom are sympathetic to Trump than there are Republicans whom are sympathetic to Harris.

Everyone that was against Trump in 2016 fell hard for him in 2020 or after.

There's few people who oppose him and fewer who woke up from the Kool-Aid.

>>7831
Fascist countries don't allow anything outside of the state. Nothing outside of "society", while simultaneously claiming "there is no such thing as society". So, the lack of opposition is constructed. To speak against the way things are is treason.

What I can say is that there are a lot of Rethuglican voters who fucking loathe Trump, but they're not going to vote for literally Satan that the Democrats keep putting up to get us to like His Baleful Eminence. But, that doesn't make a neat narrative of what the world is "supposed" to be, so you never see it in the discourse. Most ordinary rank and file Rethuglicans don't care any more. They got theirs, and that was what they wanted. It's not that they love Trump or hate Democrats. Ideology is for the slaves. For the Democrats with any political sense, they want to run against Trump forever, so of course their political leaders will not let anyone say Trump is a sniveling retarded fag, which is exactly what he is. They might throw out a "Elon is a dipshit" every now and then, but they'll never go full-bore. If they did, Kamala would go on global television and call Trump the retard he is. That's the political kiss of death.

By now it's clear the Democrats are really, REALLY throwing it. They're done pretending. I don't know if I'm going to bother looking at election results.

Whats your take on "le mascukinity crisis" or machismo philosoohy like Way Of Men by Jack Donovan?


I oersonally regard literature like that as guilt-tripping higwash.
Men who whine about civilisation and think masculinity is just playing war games are often times disgruntled boomers who internalised too much comic books or movies.

They think humanity is meant to live on the edge.

>>7834
Nearly all sexualist writing of that sort relies on forced ignorance and manufactured conflict between men and women, and men against men - and it is almost entirely aimed at men or encouraging women to be eugenist harridans. The ways eugenics promotes conflict between women doesn't operate through the standard media, since the need to maintain the illusion of "The Sisterhood" is necessary for the taboo eugenics commands to remain in force. If women openly circumvented lockstep enforcement of eugenist taboos, the project would be undone, for women would mate with men and violate the dictum that reproduction and reality must be controlled at all levels. It doesn't stop women from violating eugenics, but if they do, it must become an unmentionable, and the woman is punished severely. The example is then shown to the women to make it clear what happens if they go against eugenics. You're not going to find women who will do so, without taking the preliminary step of sterilizing themselves and making it clear that they have no interest in family life. The danger is too great, and the danger extends to any man who would bring liability to himself, and be a liability to everyone around him. It's insidious how the taboo operates under the eugenic creed, when you see that Satanic perverts decide who lives and dies, and that they NEED ritual sacrifice to continue for their religion to remain valid. Eugenics has no "off button".

So when people talk shit like "men should be this" and give these ridiculous, faggy expectations, I file it under deliberate, contemptuous lying. Men aren't "supposed" to be anything but humans with penises, with all that their gonads entail. All that their gonads entail is, when you look at it honestly, not much at all. We spend very little of our time doing anything sexual or "sexually coded", except by insinuation that is the darling of public relations. Most men, if you look at men at any era of history, are miserable and expect to be miserable, with about a third of men entirely excluded from meaningful sexual life. For most of history, this carried on without anyone caring, including the men themselves, because there was something for us to do with life besides this. Men always have desire and longing of some sort, but we were never going to be valid and such a goal wasn't even pined for. Most of humanity, valid and invalid, are too busy struggling to simply exist to indulge in this ideological wank. The ideology was always put in front of us to mock us and taunt us with a fictitious world where everything is given to the favored, who are publicly shown as always winning while the rest of us always lose. It's eugenics all the way down, and I have no interest in those stories, except to cure anyone I can of the sick society those stories create when allowed to fester. I'd rather men and women view the entire sexual enterprise with appropriate disgust, and work towards a way to circumvent the eugenist lockouts entirely so we take away their power of the taboo on this. That still leaves the problem of reproduction.

I'm writing a chapter of my upcoming book on this topic in particular - it's a necessary deviation from my main purpose so that the sexualist theories of history can be dismissed. Maybe I will upload the first few chapters.

Dear Oracle of /leftypol/ Eugene-kun

I have been pondering how to conduct a revolution without unlimited terror for years seeing from the historical examples no way out.

Is the answer as simple as
>Just don't do the terror stupid.
?

>>7837

Terror without virtue is worthless, virtue without terror is impotent. It has always been so. The question then is "what is virtue", for Marx disdained the concept for good reasons. When eugenics monopolized virtue, calculating it and manipulating language starting with the total reversal of "the good" in the name itself, what does this mean for the terror, if eugenics is not acknowledged?

>>7837
>I have been pondering how to conduct a revolution without unlimited terror for years seeing from the historical examples no way out.
To give you a conceptual idea:

If you had technology from science fiction and you could give everybody a matter-replicator and mini-fusion generator to power it, that would enable people to opt out of abusive power-relations. And that way the revolution would not just be non-violent, but downright uneventful. In this world it gets really hard to organize people by imposing on them, and that favors organizing by volition.

While we don't have this kind of near-magic technology, the basic premise still remains true the more you can find ways to enable people to opt out of abusive power relations the better the world will be.

The take-away is that if you find your self in a position where you make these kinds of decisions, at least look whether you can substitute a violent measure against subjugation with something that empowers people to bypass the subjugation.

Keep in mind that in the long run you need to figure out these mechanisms anyway, because you can't uphold revolutionary terror for very long. The people who want a better world usually have a very limited capacity to inflict terror.

>>7841
Stop, stop. You're not getting it. There isn't a "need of abundance". If incompetent production were the problem, we'd starve under "natural law" and this would obviously be ruinous. There is no shortage of natural resources and certainly no shortage of labor, even useful skilled labor, to produce the reasonable wants of someone that are politically relevant - which is to say, most people want security before they can attain anything else, and that is the bare minimum that enters political consideration. What people need for the purpose of material security is cheap, because the greatest cost is the deliberate malice of other people and what it takes to stave them off - or the cost of the ritual sacrifices, which are premised on precisely denying that which allows security. We can produce lots of "stuff", but all of it is tainted and intended to weaken people, and they are not allowed the simplest self-defense. All it takes is a malevolent actor extracting everything you thought was your product in rent to make you starve; and yet. Modern society specifically denies any security to the ruled. If everyone had sufficient security to live out their life, they couldn't be forced into wageslavery or be forced to comply with these clearly ruinous institutions, so that a few people can enjoy the thrill of torture. Most of humanity does not need this, and quite a few in humanity very much do not want this and have said this is the nature of their problem. And yet, certain people insist we have to live under constant fear and torture, based on pure insinuation. It went on for too long, and this "abundance" talking point is one of their techniques to brag that nothing we have is real. They put shit in the food to make everyone fat fucks, and brag about everyone being drunk addicts.

You have a matter replicator that is quite sufficient - the Earth itself, and fertilizers. We grow far more food than we consume, and could easily expand agricultural production by setting aside the land, labor, and water. You could desalinate and purify an ocean for far cheaper than it costs to maintain this deliberate torture cult deprivation, and yet, we're not allowed to speak of the source of the problem, which is the torture cult that glorifies starvation for its own sake. As long as that is there, it doesn't matter how much "stuff" you have. Only if that stuff translated into force to prevent that do you change much. But, if your entire theory relies on incessant struggle, it is an unwinnable struggle, and intended to be so. The rulers and those who aspire to rule do not struggle. They do not. They never did, and they laugh at anyone who thinks that will set them free. They also laugh at the idea that the forms of knowledge are somehow a liberatory "master key". Ultimately, humanity has to want it to be different, and it turns out that in the end, they really don't. They know it's shit, they know that this doesn't produce anything, but because this has gone on for so long, humanity doesn't know anything else. I doubt they ever will, even if you imagine the most advanced technology, or a very different existence that is difficult to explain here but that has been inherent in every religion and the long-run trajectory of the human race, so far as a "point to humanity" can be found. That is, what humanity turns into at the "very end", or as far into the future as we can see, has a few qualities we have always foreseen, rather than just an endless morass of torture and screaming "DIE". But, it was the ritual sacrifice - the thrill of torture - that won, because it was so central to what HUMANS are. If humans were going to be anything else, we'd have seen something different a long time ago. 1914 either would not have been allowed to happen, or that would have been the end and we wouldn't have tolerated this plan war going on for 100 years after it.

If people got what was really best for them - what would best ameliorate all of their wants and needs - it is very likely the human project would be abandoned. After comparing notes, most of humanity would choose to live without reproducing, and the drawing down of humanity's numbers would ensue. There wouldn't be much reason for more than a few million humans to exist on Earth, and this isn't due to any "carrying capacity" or material necessity that prevents too many people. It would be far more basic - people simply have nothing to reproduce children for. For most of history, children were born because they were slave labor for their family. If you had a child out of love, you were in for a rude awakening and the child would see it - unless you and your child were both sadists, which is what humans chose to be rather than anything worthwhile. I have to think that, after humanity really talked to each other for the first time in their existence - remember that most of humanity didn't have much to do with other humans outside of their village, and politics was something far away that usually just meant torture and death - humans found out they really don't like each other, and can't coexist, even when the path to do so is very basic. It's too much to ask the sadists to stop, because it is the sadists who dominated humanity very early in its existence, and their world-historical mission was to make sure we never had anything, ever, but the torture. That is their god, and they laughed that you all allowed it to happen. It didn't "have" to be this way, but at every juncture where it could be different even in a small way, certain people saw it as their mission to "correct history", and we got what we got.

I don't believe now is the end, but globalization made clear that there was never going to be any coexistence. Anything like coexistence is going to to entail humans refusing to have much at all to do with each other, until there are fewer humans to be the problem. It's really a question of the volition of humans to do evil, rather than their technological means to do evil. If humans really wanted to do the maximal evil in a technological sense, we can easily do far worse than we do right now, and we don't mostly because humans are lazy and there was enough self-interest to not let the sadists win everything. We're coming to a breaking point where the sadists have too much, but I do not believe the present philosophy of sadism will last forever. I believe eugenics will do its damage, making its permanent mark on humanity, and then another regime of oppression will take its place, tossing aside the eugenists as soon as they fulfill their part of the world-historical mission. That's why I kept asking, why do the eugenists think this ends with anything other than the same torture we've always known? If you're a Mason, of course you're for the torture, because you never had to think. The eugenists who are true believers, I will never understand why they allowed it to get this bad, but eugenics cannot fail. It can only be failed.

If you wanted a prosperous future of the sort you might imagine, you'd probably see the futility of superficial abundance that is advanced in capitalism or Marxism, and see hitherto known human history as wholly unacceptable for the purpose. History would move on, without the mediation or interference of those who should have been ignored. At that point, all known models of predicting human history would fail so far as they predict any grand narrative, beyond a few generalities. But, the technology and machines humans build, we could predict that, and we could make some guess as to what we could do with the machines we have. The problem with that thinking is that, in the past century, humanity has all of the technology to easily be far more efficient than they are now, at no cost to anyone. The only efficiency humans regard though is the eugenist imperative to kill, kill, kill. They don't want to make nice things. If they did, we would see the present course of action is wholly unnecessary, and if humanity refuses to do the right thing, we would then tell humanity that they should self-terminate if they really think this course of action leads anywhere, because we already know the outcome. But, since that won't happen, very likely those who wanted something honest, if they haven't self-terminated already, have resolved to leave the entire human project behind. In my work for the others, I really only care about those who get what this is and see no reason to continue the course given to us. I can't force humanity into peaceful coexistence. I could give them ideas about how to do that if they'd listen, but very clearly they do not want that, because they didn't need my advice for a problem they caused unilaterally and for no good reason. It would be very simple to draw down the war machines of every state, root out the torture cult with the remaining force, and reduce human existence to a very lowly level, since humans cannot coexist in their present conditions, and the present society is wholly and absolutely intolerable. It cannot be reformed or changed by anything humans aspire to do. You could have a revolution, only to create the same sort of sickness - perhaps with different winners and losers, but never anything good for us. But, if you wanted the obvious road to peace, that is lost to us forever. We could have done that during the 20th century, and a few people tried, but what did it come to? As long as the sadists were safe, they were always going to drive history as they pleased, and laugh that you allowed yourselves to become evolutionary flotsam. Idiots. Idiots.

So, that's the kind of thing that leads to this pointless and silly terror. We wouldn't have to do this, except for the stupid decisions humanity made in the past, because certain people absolutely refused to let us have anything good. Those people then shifted the blame onto the poor and the weak and the disabled, and got on the highest horse humans ever got on when it came to shaming us. I keep wondering where they get their standards of comparison, since I have no poltiical power and no office or virtue, and no one follows me for any political aim. I tell people not to follow me, and that I am not a politician. So far as I have any impact on the world, it can't be much compared to the very obvious malice of someone with even a low political office or someone in the club. Yet, this is the moral values of a Satanic race, and even if there are a few humans here and there - not a small number - that think differently, the associations and the ways humans made them simply did not want that, regardless of the institutions. The institutions merely locked in the human spirit, and were the preferred vehicle for ensuring that the small bit of decency and good we could keep in the world was destroyed, for the sake of this faggotry.

There is one silver lining to all of this. This is that a lot of people will come to view life as a temporary problem, their existence as transient, and the state as something far removed from them - as it should be. I expect that a great many of humanity will die, say "well, too bad it had to suck", and brace themselves for the Living Hell. That was what Masonry had for us. Fucking assholes.

>>7842
>Stop, stop. You're not getting it. There isn't a "need of abundance". If incompetent production were the problem, we'd starve under "natural law" and this would obviously be ruinous. There is no shortage of natural resources and certainly no shortage of labor, even useful skilled labor, to produce the reasonable wants of someone that are politically relevant - which is to say, most people want security before they can attain anything else, and that is the bare minimum that enters political consideration. What people need for the purpose of material security is cheap, because the greatest cost is the deliberate malice
Oh you took replicators to represent abundance, i guess they do, but they also have another quality. They represent the ability to produce material security that can't be withheld or taken away. Basically if everybody had a replicator, it becomes impossible to deprive people of material security. These "people of deliberate malice" would not be able to get in-between people and their material security ever again. The point being irreversible progress.

>>7844
It is always possible to take away anything someone possesses. We already have the "matter replicator". That is what human labor does, and it is clearly alienable and violable. The same is true of any technology that could exist. There was never a "need" for this deprivation, nor for the deliberate malice that justifies the deprivation. If nothing else, we would rather starve and die than listen to any more of this faggotry from self-important jackasses. If we wanted right, whenever these Satanics start their "lifeboat ethics" game, we would mark them down and publicly burn them, so that our remaining time on the lifeboat is as glorious as we can make it. Burn the Satanics, without fail. No one needs to tolerate those insinuations. So, why did they, except that this is what humans really are, and they show what they are every time? Only the world and spite allowed us to be anything else, for a time, and it was always treated as an unnatural imposition when we didn't do what we were "supposed" to do. All that we aspired to do to change this just made the Satanics stronger, for they do not struggle. They do not, and they never did, struggle in any way. Satanics do not suffer. Satanics do not care about retribution - they will just smirk and say "life well spent". But, we would by rooting them out win some moments of peace, which is all we could hope for.

In principle, nothing stops humanity from stopping what it is doing immediately, saying "this is stupid", and cancelling this course of purges and death. But, that's not what humans are, and since when has a Satanic race changed? A Satanic race cannot change. The same thing which we rely on to live at all is the same "stuff" that the rulers use to destroy us. They are not made of anything special, and do not possess any special knowledge. They do this because they want us to suffer, and humanity refuses to answer it with anything other than assent. Humans do not know anything else and go out of their way to avoid knowing, because they don't like the answer and insist, for some sick reason, that ritual sacrifice must be sacrosanct, "above God".

>>7846
>It is always possible to take away anything someone possesses. We already have the "matter replicator". That is what human labor does, and it is clearly alienable and violable. The same is true of any technology that could exist. There was never a "need" for this deprivation, nor for the deliberate malice that justifies the deprivation.
I agree that the deprivation was never necessary. However you are wrong about replicators. One of the defining characteristics of replicators is that one replicator can make another. So as long as there is one replicator out there it will be used to make more and that makes it a unsuppressible technology.

Something that would have the universal fabrication qualities of a replicator today would be the size of an enormous industrial park, and require many hundreds of thousands to millions of people to operate. So in a way yes replicators do exist but they are absolutely enormous. And they kinda do have this unsuppressible quality, but only at the scale of large countries.

I don't know how to express this, maybe try to find technology that behaves like that, but at smaller scales.

>>7847
Break your replicator and it's suppressed. Every technology that is realized can be broken. The idea of a technology, the plans to construct it anew, allow free reproduction in principle. In practice, anything in physical reality, and that includes the mind and brain that can utilize any technology, is not "infinitely freely reproducible", and exists within boundaries.

You already have "matter-replicators" - a body, a brain and mind, labor-power, and gonads to reproduce more entities like you. All of those things can be broken and are never inviolable. You take them for granted at your own peril.

Let's put it another way - if you have a matter replicator, so does the oppressor. For everything you create, the oppressor can create the things which will destroy your product, lock you in a cage, and torture you into accepting anything. We don't need any particular level of technology to envision the consequences of this, because this is inherent in what humans do at any level of technology recognizable as human. If you want to speak of a society where this doesn't happen, you're asking for a very different idea. You're asking for a different political settlement, at the least.

It's very difficult to "suppress technology", in the sense that people will be too dumb to conceive of humanity being different, and needing to be different if their lives will be worth anything. We could do a lot of things now that are obviously superior, and there is no excuse for the vast dislocation of resources and deliberate malice and torture we live under. There never was. It's not a technological limitation that imposes this, for us or them. The malicious want it more and have a stranglehold on our lives. The moment we act in a way that deviates from what is acceptable, the sadists in charge will move to "correct history", before it spreads too far. We are only capable of small-scale independence from the sadists, and for us to have nice things has been made unseemly and "queer", while the sadists freely associate and reap all rewards from the efforts we make to change the world. So, every technology we create is seized by the sadists for their purposes. We'd only make them stronger by pursuing "technological fixes", no matter what we do. While we are stuck building productive technology, they are building the technology of oppression and torture freely, reaping the same rewards of productive technology. Every time we're not playing "their game", we are diverting resources from what the sadists can do freely and in large associations and institutions. If we refuse to play their game, we are "retarded" and marked as political non-entities. We could in theory refuse to do any of this starting tomorrow, and that in practice is what we have to do simply to live. But, inevitably, we are threatened to comply with the ruling ideas, until they are naturalized, history in the record is edited, and it is haram to speak of history being different.

There are ways out of this trap, but they are not trivial, and they would require abrogating the philosophy of struggle for struggle's sake. Eventually, it will happen - but it won't happen for us. It would only happen for people in the future, whose situation will be very different. The rule of aristocratic sadism and forced ignorance under eugenism is temporary, rather than natural and "above God". It fails because it relies on a level of forced ignorance and suppression that is not sustainable. But, you don't "invent your way" out of eugenism. That impulse is itself a contributor to the eugenic creed's approach to society. By indulging in the tech cult mythos, you're just making the hand of eugenism stronger by giving them free productivity to sustain their sadism. You can't encourage these people.

But, at a basic level, humans can make other humans, tools can make other tools, and what you're describing is a quality of technology generally - that it is freely reproducible and expansible. Obviously that hasn't stopped the technological interest from overwhelmingly supporting eugenism, even though it winds up destroying them, because the mentality of the commons will always tell them that they are the true aristocracy, and that they will embrace the aristocratic mode of thought long before they ever align with the lower orders.

I'm writing the chapter of my next book about this exact topic - how we understand economics, and one of the understandings of economics is that it is a general theory of technology. That is the understanding of political economy starting from Adam Smith, if you really get what it was about.

>>7848
>Break your replicator and it's suppressed.
Lets count a big fully featured industrial production site as an actually existing replicator.
Wars have destroyed those but they get rebuild and usually larger and more potent than before.
The point is that breaking machines doesn't necessarily suppress all instances of said technology.

I think you are trying to make a general argument that the means of destruction are more powerful then means of production in a political sense. Do you think Marx was wrong ? to tell the proletariat to seize the means of production, should he have told the workers to seize all the military equipment instead ?

Look at the geo-pol struggle of current time.
China prioritized means of production (m.o.p.)
the US prioritized means of destruction (m.o.d.)
China has growing influence while the US has declining influence. So it seems that the m.o.p. is more potent than the m.o.d.

We more or less know how to make molecular fabricators, there is just one problem, it's called the "sticky finger problem". Basically imagine you and I are part of a replicator mechanism, if I want to hand you an atom your fingers have to be stickier than mine or else i won't be able to let go of the atom i want to give you and you won't be able to hold on to said atom. That makes it very difficult to transfer elements from a reservoir to what ever you are trying to build.

But if somebody figures out how to overcome this, and people start making their own replicators, do you really think that will have less impact on society than giving everybody a gun ? Keep in mind that it probably would get a lot harder to break the bodies of people on they have such a potent tool to make protections.

The other more general argument we are having is whether the idea of tech-liberation is worth pursuing.
You seem to be opposed to it ? Can you explain why ? I find it hard to understand your posts, so maybe lets try fiction. Suppose 500 years from now humanity developed like in one of those optimistic stories for example Star Trek or the Orville. How did that happen, what's the origin story of that world ?

>>7852
You're granting to technology substantive powers it doesn't possess. We have plans for all manner of good things, but will they be realized? Will they be relevant to the world we live in? On paper the solution to humanity's woes is very simple. It's even simpler than a production problem, because the malice of human beings is more relevant to us than any other material condition. We could draw a plan where people refuse to abide the malicious institutions we have been made to abide. That is so easy a caveman could do it, and mainly did - not that it stopped primitive mankind from doing evil, but they had enough sense not to do what we're doing now. It's not hard to see where this ideology of malice leads if you think for five minutes, and the simplest technology would be to negate that. No rule of nature requires us to do any of this bullshit, and technology was originally built to circumvent exactly this. It is something in humanity that inspires the malice, and that is what repurposes everything for this cause of increasing human suffering, where originally no suffering existed because there really wasn't much to do. All of the suffering of the rest of the world is nothing compared to humanity's malice towards each other, and if some alien power in the universe hates us, why would we expect that to be unusual? It is not the obligation of the universe to give us what we wanted. The universe can go on easily without us. Yet, all of our problems are caused by other humans choosing to make themselves the greatest problem in our lives. They are not natural problems, because after all of this, nature is almost begging us not to do what we've been doing, and gave us multiple chances out of some blind fate that suggested what we're doing is really really wrong and not going to work.

The technology itself didn't create this evil. Humans did. Technology won't create the cure, because we've always had the technology to not do this. What we're doing is not premised on any material necessity. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this since you can't seem to process the concept. I go mad trying to explain this while the same snarking assholes shit up the world because they can, because they hate us that much and enjoy seeing us suffer. The simplest technological fix would be to exterminate those people, in all cases. There is no other solution - and it is precisely that which was weaponized and turned against the weak, by the power of insinuation and taboo made into a technological product called "ideology".

Technology doesn't have any "spirit" of its own. It is by the proposition of such a thing a product of some entity which built it. It may take on a life of its own and follow imperatives particular to it, but it doesn't have an independent will beyond what its maker infused in it. That first requires willful actors to exist, and then they have to create this technology or allow it to be utilized as technology, rather than some happenstance of the universe which created the tools "naturally". Something as simple as picking up a rock turns it into a tool - into technology, which we can understand the utilities of. The rock didn't compel a primitive man or ape to do anything. It was entirely something we picked up, and we could pick up some other object for many similar utilities. Those utilities aren't fixed by nature or the intent of rocks to be used by us. The rock wasn't built "for" us. More complicated machinery is deliberately constructed, but the intent of technology is never "encoded" in nature. It would not matter if the "matter replicator" is some new technology or the "matter replicator" of producing new humans through this strange technology called "sex". We use the tool only as we will, not from what the tool was "supposed" to do.

Perhaps you can see an intent very clearly in technology that only exists because humans were here to realize it, but this type of technology is not "freer" or any more substantive based on some content of human genius or intelligence or intent built into it. The tools we use today are consequences of simpler tool use, and the technological chain from primitive technology to, say, a computer, is not as insurmountable as you are trained to think. What is a computer doing, except automating rote instructions we could carry out with pen and paper and symbolic language, or an abacus? It's not "made of magic". It's doing something we would have done ourselves or told slaves to do in the past.

>>7853
>>7849
>>7848
This.
People act like AI and computers in general are some omnipotent menace that has infinite resources but it's not.
If AI takes over the world, it's gonna be because humans built them.
Machines cannot be made sentiment.
They can be programmed but humans don't have the power to breathe life into them.

Also, all machinery requires natural resources.
The bigger and more complex the machine , the more resources it requires which means less to go around for everything else. That means we will have to go into outer space to acquire more resources.

>>7857
It's not that machines are incapable of thought or "sentience" (a loaded conceit about the self that is improper to describe cognition and what we "are"). It is entirely possible to build a machine which is autonomous and has all of the abilities and agency a human possesses. They would not occur naturally and their origin as constructs would be a simple fact with consequences for their existence, just as humans cannot change their original conditions.

The Germanic mind-virus "taught the controversy" about this, made all of these talking points for you to make understanding political society impossible. There is nothing special about life or intelligence or "sentience" that gives it unique agency. I don't know how to explain this in simpler language.

The point I was making is that we already have all of the means to break free from this. It was never a question of the technology or power at our disposal. It was a question of will and moral want for humanity to be different. If no one wants the society to do anything other than this, then there really is nothing to be done. A Satanic race cannot change - and this is exactly why the ideology was promoted, and why a racial conception of humanity overrode the civilizational or spiritual conception of humanity that was what made us "human" in any sense worth noticing.

The "cult of AI" is really the imperial cult and its conceit about intelligence - it is the eugenics cult and the cult that believes the Great Working will totally work this time. Intelligence itself does not operate in this way. It is a machine like any other, arising in the world to fulfill a very narrow function, as opposed to consciousness or the mind proper which is far more versatile. Intelligence only exists to solve problems. It doesn't have any moral value in of itself to judge reality. That's always been a Germanic mind-disease. Otherwise, it is very obvious that human beings, or anything in the world, is a finite entity, and that includes their thought or any "manna" they could tap into from another plane of existence. The world itself is finite - perhaps uncountable to any knowledge we may ever possess, but if the world were truly "infinite", it would be a very different construct that forbids distance or temporality of any sort. It is entirely possible that THINGS in the world are so far apart that they would never have anything to do with some other things, and so the boundaries of existence are far beyond what is observable to us, and we would never possess by empirical evidence any useful indicator of the true nature or extent of the universe. We would only be able to make models which are never proven, and we have no more connection to "fundamental reality" than we started with by any theory or understanding we may acquire. But, a truly "infinite universe" with no possible limit, can be ruled out because of what it would mean to speak of such an entity. If you could describe the universe as "functionally infinite", you would have to insert some explanation which merely moves the universe to another plane of existence, about which our evidence can say nothing and which is given over to whatever priest claims to connect to this higher existence. It wouldn't explain anything, and we could in principle make the same sort of claims, for the same reasons the priest would, if we were so inclined. We would then return to the same battle for spiritual authority, except here, spiritual authority is invested in persons who are very obviously mortal, rather than anything worthy of spiritual authority. If a priest were at all sincere, they would tell you - and a few do - that there is nothing special about the priesthood, other than their specialization in asking these questions among humans. The worthwhile religions only work because the adherent, regardless of their social class, has questions about the world, and in particular questions about the evil which is the function religion and the priesthood usually serve, either as those knowledgeable about the evil, or as agents of the evil themselves, which every priest is by the nature of their work.

>>7857
As for the complexity of the machine inherently leading to a greater resource cost, that is only the case so far as we know the parts to be finite and the costs of regulating the machine to remain in its state, in working condition. Complex machines with a lot of moving parts have more things that can go wrong, must be built with more exacting measurements from the builder, and this would apply to machines we task to build other machines for us - since humans are at the base level no different from machines, and operationalize everything they do, with every possible tool they use, and all parts of a human's body are tools in order to exist and have any effect on the world that is stable.

The real problem is that the AI cult wants to build a machine to solve a problem with a very simple solution - let the people have the thing they wanted in the first place - because they can't stand the idea that the little people wouldn't agree with the Great Master Plan, and don't really have any investment in "society" as such. What has society been to them except a constant threat demanding submission? If society were anything else, it would be able to justify its aims and the aims of any institution in it without this much rigamarole. It is precisely because the rulers don't want us to have anything ever that we have this construct. If the objective was about having nice things, we could solve that problem easily, which is what we do every day to accomplish anything. It would not be infinitely easy or automatic, but the needs and wants of most humans are simple enough. Most of humanity does not want exorbitant things. They want security, they want a few simple pleasures, and they want assurances about the future within a reasonable timeframe. All of these are manipulated by insinuation and cajoling by those who already acquired security, and those sadists found the best way to secure themselves is by making other people suffer. That is ALL they have to do, and because humans are given over to this mindset, it is rewarded and has become a persistent evil in the world, operating on its own power. It is not possible to negotiate with people who want that to be the world, as if coexistence with them is possible. They go out of their way to make it clear that whatever society you make, whatever you do to live apart from them, they will not allow you to do so. Otherwise, humanity would see that coexistence is impossible, and eliminate the problem by passing a universal decree that humans are not to speak to each other without a very, very good reason. The human project would in effect end overnight, and no one would see this as a loss except the sadists. There would be nothing more to speak of, except to ensure that this doesn't happen ever again. We've seen what humans turn into when they get ideas about changing the world in this way. If they have a better idea to change the world, that doesn't entail making most of humanity suffer for this stupid faggotry, they are free to speak - I don't think anyone really suppresses that, despite the sadists wanting to do exactly that. I think in the long run humanity will give up entirely on the human project, and those who are already there have figured out that reproducing new humans will just feed the beast more sacrifices. They will fade from this world, but not before leaving behind what the others need to rid themselves of the ruling ideas for good. Humanity will be killed off that way, and the sadists who insisted "you must live for us" will have no one to kick down. They can't stand that. We, on the other hand, can easily envision total destruction of the human race in their full existence, and not particularly mind if that happens. Some of us even consider that a step in the right direction for the world, so that a menace to everything around it can finally be removed. That's why I keep wondering why anyone goes along with eugenics and this faggotry. They have to see that this leads to an obvious outcome, based on how they conduct themselves. If they really want this to be the world, they should just rope themselves now, because they don't appear particularly happy with the sadistic thrill of torture. Those who do, they're never going to change, and if they are the last entities in the world, they'll turn on each other and make each other miserable. They'd then have to ask the same question, except because they would be a thoroughly Satanic race, they are cursed to have no way out. They exist in the living Hell.

If, however, humanity really wants it to be different, there are far better ways than the fate I have outlined here. I doubt any of them will happen, but the shit we're doing now is for the birds. It is likely that the current method of glorifying torture and death will produce predictable failure, and the people behind the curtain who direct this will move in and dictate to humanity what they've really wanted to do, now without any pesky "democracy". They just hate us that much and see no purpose for us in their world-historical models, and so what's happening now isn't going to stop easily. We're already locked in for depopulation, and the sadists of all stripes love it. I have the question of what I am to do with the time I have left. I tried coexisting with this beast, and they are dead set on removing me as a stain in their "perfect race". How they think their race is perfect, I do not know, because they're visibly decrepit and have nothing to say for themselves. But, a Satanic race cannot change.

Anyway, to really answer your question; when the problem is entirely about making other go along with a social order they have no reason to ever feed or encourage, the problem contains its answer. There is no reason we need to feed the exorbitant machinery and advantage of aristocracy and their running dogs, but if you ever say that, it's like you violated the holy of holies. It is aristocracy rather than "the bourgeoisie" who are the enemy, but you can't say that. That is haram.

What is the significance of Donald Trump's Germanic ancestry?

>>7861
Other than Retard-Man being an example of his race's stupidity, nothing much. There are many such cases of this faggotry. Trump is a product for the fags that have always waited for their day, and they are fags who clamor for nothing but blood. They are far lower than anything Trump himself could accomplish, and that tends to be how the cult of personality works. The Great Leaders is always offering less than what the base was trained to clamor for, and he can only offer more, more, more blood for the cause - and can't do anything else. Once it starts, it ceases to be about philosophical excuses or operations. It is an evil which does what it will, to which humanity has no answer and never did. Humanity only endures such a beast, and it might recover from it. This time, though, there will be no recovery. Eugenics made its mark and intends to stay forever, even if eugenism as a going concern were to fade.

One thing I can say is that Americans were not going to be allowed to say no. They weren't allowed to say no to Obama, not allowed to say no to Bush and Reagan. Visible rejection is only towards those who do not comply with the Satanic program. The Satanists demand this right of unlimited transgression, and they will go to great lengths to secure it as the last right, the only right that may exist. A Satanic race cannot change.

So, the question now is, what do they want to do with their life? If they want to keep lying to themselves or making excuses, this just gets worse. We know what Those People are. If we had neutralized them in the 1990s, we might have been able to hold on to something. Now, though, this world is forsaken. The world tries to save us, but humans don't know anything else, and for humans, there is no redemption after this. We tried to stop it before this happened. It is left to another time for the cycle of sacrifice to begin anew, and eugenics is dead set on editing history to tell a story of its eternally imminent victory. Eugenics, eugenics, eugenics above all - and it originated with the British Crown. Adolf Hitler was a Crown agent, but they don't let you say that. It spoils the game, and makes the war guilt of the Germans more complicated (they are war guilty and the German nation cannot be allowed to continue, but they are guilty of being partners of global eugenics and did not uniquely create this abomination).

So the plan the empire has is to eliminate the "superstates" of the 20th century, starting with the Soviet Union, currently dismantling the United States, and at the end of the parade they will dismantle what remains of China, and that is the biggest prize of all. Once complete, there will be no country where any concept against eugenics may live. It will be a truly global empire with no capital or center. The nations of the world can only compete to be the most fertile ground for eugenics, and we already see that narrative seeded with the threat that opposing neoliberalism will mean there are no more jobs. Already the threat is that if people do not impose strict eugenic creed in all things, their economies will howl. This is what the beast is imposing on every country in the world, while it wins the big prize of the former United States and makes an example of the Americans, who they've always despised.

>>7864
>So the plan the empire has is to eliminate the "superstates" of the 20th century, starting with the Soviet Union, currently dismantling the United States, and at the end of the parade they will dismantle what remains of China, and that is the biggest prize of all.
You are echoing Chomsky who framed it as breaking down organized humanity. I agree with you on the level where it's their intention to do all of that.

However we have to be somewhat realistic, the Soviets dismantled them self's. The cold war arms race and encirclement were an important factor, but the decisive factor was internal. Cockshott made a video that explains the economic factors of the Soviet dissolution.
https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=EE-kCZnlGZU
https://youtu.be/EE-kCZnlGZU

There is a small chance that they might be able to crack the US, because all the imperial divide and conquer energy gets turned inwards. You know at the end of an empire, it is somewhat common that the methods of subjugating colonies are getting used against the homeland. It's by no means a done deal, some empires just evaporate without damaging the homeland too much.

I would say the chances of them cracking China are approximately zero. By all measurable criteria the Chinese do not appear to be building imperial structures, and as a result they aren't going to generate much divisive energy. There won't be much exploitable fracturing potential. If you are looking at the international stage the Chinese have been instrumental in creating structures of organized humanity. And the process appears to be outpacing the rate at which the imperials have shattered such structures. At least in recent years.

I know there are plans for the US to go to war against China within 3 years, that's like trying to smash 2 superstates into each other to destroy both of them. But honestly they've been trying and failing to do big-power-collision for the latter half of the 20th century. This is very much avoidable.

>>7865
The dissolution of the USSR was an internal decision, but who was waiting in the wings to gobble up the plunder? The people doing this don't care about any particular nation, and they find agents within the countries they wish to loot who are ready for it. Empires always think globally. Always.

The US is far more rotted from within than the Soviet Union. The Soviet institutions still worked for the favored class of their society, produced men who could actually rule. The US is completely gutted. There is no "American ruling class" - it's been prepared for total enslavement unlike anything that is familiar in history. It took releasing the vultures to really fuck up Russia, and then Putin (sort of) kept the mafias in line and restored something like a functional society. He's proceeded to shit it up in two short years since it was always dependent on playing ball with the same people who bought up the USSR after dissolution. You can see the exact same people salivating at chopping up the US - Americans, Europeans, Russians, some guys in China, and the Japanese who have always been stakeholders in the global system. They even elevate Sachs who joined in the plunder of the fUSSR as an "anti-imperial" voice for the retard brigade.

You have to get out of the idea that Empires are tied to nations, like "the American Empire" or "the Chinese Empire". There is only one Empire in this world, the successor to the British Empire. Only one. Everyone else is trying to be a stakeholder in that empire (this is what Klaus Schwab is selling, that the Empire will give its German stakeholders more power, as has been the German/Nazi function - to get "good capitalists", preferably non-Jewish capitalists. Krauts never change their MO. They really are a disgusting race.

No one would have believed in 2008 that the US would become this weak internally. Someone would think there would have been a revolt. But, if they weren't going to revolt during the 1990s, they were never going to. They knew what was coming, and there is no victory against an enemy that can dig in for an interminable war, with considerable support among the population that are fanatical true believers. The eugenic creed rules this world now. All nations will be bent to eugenics and nothing else.

So, I believe China can be cannibalized very easily - they've operated in alliance with the fUSA and that alliance can no longer work with no USA. They're surrounded by military bases that will be picked up by Nazified-NATO and Satanic shock troops. China doesn't have anything in it to really resist encroachment. Already, Xi is preparing the Chinese for the sort of social engineering eugenics needs, very violently. After the current war (soon to expand to tearing down the fUSA and ensuring Russian compliance), there's nothing restraining the Xi clique from taking a victory lap and proving the superiority of their eugenist interventions. With what army do the people of China resist this, and what political elite in China would risk going against global eugenics? They would control global transport and most of the Earth, fending off whatever "barbarian incursions" the occupied peoples of the world mount. Unless China is going to lead a great peoples' revolt against this beast, they're fucked. They're going to do no such thing, and if they did, then Xi or his successor would be the greatest human who ever lived for allowing this. But, with what does anyone actually remove the eugenists? They do a lot of damage due to the fanaticism of their operatives and the simplicity of their Satanic ethos.

>>7865
If Trump tries to go to war with China, that is instant mutiny. It's insanity. If the "deep state" tries to, they'll have worse than mutiny, but the people running that joint have no interest in war with China, or really any war other than the Plan Wars they have right now. They have never wanted to get out of the Middle East, and it is well known that they intend to be there for decades - all to defend Israel. Even after the USA is dissolved, the imperial army must defend their project there.

I doubt there will be a "United States" in four years. The timetable for its breakup has been accelerated, and Trump is going to finish the job quickly. Already, I'm seeing signs that the government will not be here in the near future. Some very basic government programs were immediately defunded and sent out notices that their operations are over. State HHS departments just re-approved everyone because they know it's irrelevant with what Trump is bringing in - their offices will be dissolved along with whatever they were paying out. The country will not be able to continue with what Trump is promising in his bombastic videos.

Welcome to Project 2025. You wanted it, and oh boy, you're going to get it.

I expect it won't be long until what's left of the judiciary is reduced to a pure kangaroo court, based on my observations and recent dealings with them. They were telling you about a year back that their plan was "AI law" - basically making the law inscrutable except for "the machine", which is to say, they're going to make sure Oceania Has No Law, and there will be nothing you can do about it. There is no way any functional entity called "America" can continue, and such an entity isn't going to wage any major wars, much less against an intact state like China with a larger army and naval parity by now. There's also nothing to gain by war with China or Iran. What, you're going to play conqueror against over a billion people who will hate your guts for fighting a retarded race war? Then consider that China has long been a partner and has nothing to gain from a war of aggression. It's already policy to let China take Taiwan back, whatever blustering the retard brigade makes to project "stronk". China's problem with Taiwan isn't the US, but the KMT who do not want to become Communists.

>>7866
You are correct that transnational capital has no loyalties to their countries of origin. But when the Euro economy was crashed by blowing up that pipeline and the sanctions war, they did hurt their ability to exert power over the world. So they do have dependencies.

Not everybody was a Fukuyama-ist. Many people predicted the decline of the US empire.

You're dead wrong about China, they're doing trade but not subservience. The US military base encirclement of China is becoming a liability, because of the advances in missile technology. Especially combined with the fact that in terms of industrial power the Chinese are a hyper-power.

I don't know why you are shitting on the Xi Jinping govt, living standards in China keep rising, poverty keeps declining, their infrastructure is getting expanded, social services are improving, they're doing better than expected on technological independence. They seem to be coping reasonably well with their real-estate finance having crapped out. It looks like social outcomes in China will continue to improve. The only real complaint is they're not good on civil liberties, but their system is barely over a hundred years old,

I don't really get, why you think that international relations can't be free of imperial hegemony. Look at the forming BRICS stuff, that does not appear to be imperial and it's definitely the rising current.

>>7867
> war with China, that is instant mutiny
probably
>They have never wanted to get out of the Middle East, and it is well known that they intend to be there for decades - all to defend Israel.
What the are doing now is going to destroy Israel, like failed state or collapse.
>I doubt there will be a "United States" in four years.
I think you're being hyperbolic, the scenarios where the US falls apart in 4 years are very low probability.
>Welcome to Project 2025. You wanted it
I don't know what that is.

>I expect it won't be long until what's left of the judiciary is reduced to a pure kangaroo court, based on my observations and recent dealings with them. They were telling you about a year back that their plan was "AI law" - basically making the law inscrutable except for "the machine"
It's already inscrutable for most people except lawyers.

>It's already policy to let China take Taiwan back
I want to believe.
>China's problem with Taiwan isn't the US, but the KMT who do not want to become Communists.
Haven't been paying attention much recently but the last time i checked the KMT and Beijing made up and are on friendly terms. The Chinese are willing to do the one country 2 systems. Where by Taiwan has autonomy on domestic policy and trade as long as they toe the line on Chinese geo-strategic security matters. That's a better deal than US is giving Canada and Australia. Those aren't getting autonomy on trade.

>>7869
I should clarify, what the Empire really wants out of "Israel", rather than the present doctrines of Netanyahu and their antagonism with the fUSA. That isn't going away - but it's going to be rearranged into something the Bush/Cheney people want, that was worked out by the Iran-Contra boys as the plan. At least, that's what they're motivated by and what they will defend to the death. If they lose, they lose, since they're not all powerful.

I intend to release a preview of Book 4 once I finish editing and deciding what I will do with the rest of the book as far as chapters (can't say the final version will be that but I have some idea of the length of the book and topics covered).

Can I make a new thread and archive this one?

Whats the deal with Reddit?
All tge past week theyve been going apeshit on Gen Z for Trump victory.

Theyre accusing the men of being the bane of socoety.
The reactionary zeitgeist was mainly Gen X and Millennials.

I remember a decade ago they were accusing Gen Z of being transhumanistlovers due to being progressive default.

Millennials have finally become exactly like their Boomer elders.

>>7876
By now anything "politics" on Reddits is pure intel trolling. They've formed a mighty echo chamber since 2016 and sucked in a lot of normie liberals - but only enough for the liberals to be cowed into accepting anything, no matter how barbaric. The Trumpsphere and the libcore shills work together to maintain this very precise narrative of what is permissible.

Millennials were always garbage. They were given over to dictatorship based on everything I saw in school growing up. There is no coming back from that. It is best to just write off the whole cohort and start anew. They're already aggressively destroying the cohort after them, and want to destroy the next. There will be very few survivors of what is to come, at least among ordinary people. Only those who were selected to live will rise, and they were selected for their fanatical loyalty to eugenics.

A decade ago Reddit was still populated by humans who weren't purged by this or that talking point, and there was still a discussion about communism - a shittified discussion, but it was there to introduce readers to the texts of socialist thought, and not just the pseudo-doctrinaire faggotry from Leftypol. Like, there were still enough people who remembered the Soviet Union, though they were constantly suppressed and came to see forums outside their own as a lost cause. The youth were completely lost to them, had no concept of what socialism meant and constantly were drawn into Austrian School arguments that they could not comprehend. By that point, believers in socialism had basically sectioned off from the rest of humanity, because the concepts were no longer admissible as "real", and aggro neoliberal propaganda made sure the internet was unusable for this purpose. It didn't help that the communists still followed the directives from Moscow that sold out long before the fall, and couldn't get over the talking points memo version of communism they promoted. All the arch-conservatives did was adopt the same praxis and change the codewords, so they could talk past each other and enough shouting could be generated. Nobody really cared about the truth of anything, despite growing familiarity with Soviet history from the opening of the Soviet archives.

What do you think about Edwin Black and his book on eugenics? Insanely it seems to be eugenicist propaganda.

>>7890
This is what Fabians do - re-direct, misconstrue, and pretend to be friendly and cuddly. Note that he pins this on American malfeasance even though the leading eugenists were always British, and even the American geneticists were skeptical while the British eugenists were fanatical. They find American enablers, but Americans are never in charge - because one plank of British eugenics has been to completely annihilate any "American" concept, to return the country to a plantation.

>>7885
Millennials still blame boomers for their own problems despite now being thirties and early forties.
But now theyre also blaming Gen Z and Alpha.

Everything they acvuse Gen Z of doing was started by Millennials amd Gen X.
SJWism and alt right are cultural products of the 1980s and 90s.
As is "adulting."

Gen X and Y have normalised being a mediocre desperate downtrodden loser throughout the prine years.

Millennials have an exaggerated sense of age numbers.
They whine about feeling old in their early thirties.
They think that young people dating anyon a few years older/younger is "grooming."

They actually say having a cringe/awkward phase in your teenage years is not only nornal but necessary.

Generation X and Millennials have introduced self-depreciation, snarkiness, and klutziness as moral compass.

Precociousness and worldliness in youth is criminalised as toxic.


They get upset about new slang and new memes, overusing the term "brainrot".

Cannot enjoy Skibidi Toilet without some Millennial conjuring up half-baked statistics about how new memes are destroying kids brains.

This is the same generation that grew up on surreal indie entertanment and YOLO.

Theyre 35-40 with a college degree and a five/six-figure student loan debt and a low-four figure salary.
They cannot cook, clean, write, nor raise kids properly.

And alot of then dress like teenage delinquents.

>>7894
>Note that he pins this on American malfeasance even though the leading eugenists were always British
Wow, good point. Yeah, right in the introduction he immediately goes to insane amounts of misdirection and gatekeeping. But I hadn't thought of how he leaves out the British.

Is there good research and information in his book still?

>>7897
I didn't read it but this information has been available, and from the sound of it, it is yet another example of fake hand-wringing. I said early in my "career" that the only opposition to eugenics that was permitted was to say "eugenics is mean", and it had a corrosive effect on anyone saying what this was. They always knew, of course. We knew, based on what we had seen, for it would be impossible to not make this connection. The Party's first command is to tell everyone that they must disbelieve their eyes and reason, and this was a way to bring that about. The thrill of torture during the 1990s was never worse, and that's why we're here. That was the last time this could have been averted and we might have had something better, or at least we would be better prepared for the long onslaught. I will never forgive the enablers, and this book looks like enabling behavior.

Also, anyone with a university education who "made it" knew exactly what the plan was, and were told they were on the winning team. By the late 1980s, everyone was marching in total lockstep, and the world was lined up for this. Too many were pulled aside and told "the truth" or "the secret", though many of these people would be told lies about their standing or reality itself. There is no excuse. There is only the real truth—that humanity is a Satanic race, a failed race, and there was no other idea in them. There was only what the world would allow, for a time. Eventually the world will defeat humanity, but we won't be here to see it, and it will be a horrible defeat. That's what I didn't understand as a kid, because this has an obvious ending, and if life were truly pointless or for base pleasure, they wouldn't be so fanatical when eugenics was on the line. The only conclusion is that this is the human spirit, and the idea that humans were somehow different from within is a central eugenic creed shibboleth, because everything "within" is interpreted as eugenic quality. This was always built into Christianity.

>>7897
Another funny thing is that probably the most preeminent American geneticist of the day, Morgan, did not give his full endorsement to eugenics, though this had more to do with his belief that evolution was not possible than any belief that eugenics was evil. Believe it or not, that was a debate still going on; whether life could "evolve" in that way, or if it was proper to speak of such things, and what could be claimed about natural history given the scant evidence available.

One reason DNA was heralded as the victory of eugenics and genetics is because DNA gave much more weight to the "descent from apes" theory, since now you could look at DNA from living animals and find commonalities, in addiction to checking against the fossil record and what survives. It still didn't provide as much proof as the eugenists wanted for the idea they proposed about dogmatic evolution.

The funny thing about the eugenists is that when it suits them, they turn into firebreathing creationists. THEY didn't descend from monkeys—you did, because you're an animal, and they're they only real humans.

>>7899
Evolution was actually an ancient theory that was popukarised in modern times by Darwin.
Charles Darwin was originally a theologian

Also, evolution was picked up by Protestants as race realism.

>>7900
Note on Darwin we know exactly how far he got into Capital volume 1 by how many pages he had cut open.

He got to the MCM CMC cycle stopped and wrote in his diary paraphrased; If poverty is due to human action not nature then great are our sins.

>>7900
"Evolution" in a vague sense was the default "null assumption", but not in the sense that Darwin's theory answered. Darwin wasn't even making a specific revolutionary claim about evolution or creationism. His claim that humans descended from apes was a novel claim, but also one that relied on scant evidence and very spurious claims about natural history and how to detect it.

It is not a great revolution to say "life forms adapt and change over generations" to explain the variety of organisms. It was the eugenists who "taught the controversy" specifically to defend the eugenic creed. I go over this repeatedly in my books though it is never the main point, since I don't believe I need to spell it out for everyone. Instead of attacking Darwin's theory, I work through his assumption that political economy can be placed in nature. That is the basis for everything I write—that history does not work that way, and never did, and that politics and political economy do not work in the way that was mandated. That is not a novel claim from me. But, I hope with my next book I can finally place what I'm writing in a study of history, rather than the trans-historical claims I've made of what it means to speak of the economic or the political.

A preview of my next book has been posted:

https://eugeneseffortposts.royalwebhosting.net/book04/index.html