/edu/ - Education

What's your favorite scary movie?

>>7538
I don't like scary movies. Undertale has a nice level of body-horror for what it is, considering the audience was Zoomer tweens for the first game.

whats your thoughts on Newgene?
Theres another anon on Org that people refer to as Newgene due to his prose.

>>7540
I don't know who this "Newgene" is.

>>7540
>>7541
kek maybe somebody trained a textbot on those eugenics-rants

Keep your diarrhea in your containment thread, narcissist.

This person Eugene posted the same thread over at Org siberia. Are we really gonna let that slide?

Previous Eugene-lit thread has been archived at >>>/leftypol_archive/22975

advertising your site is fucking cringe brah.
sage this bullshit

eugene, I can't stop thinking about how you said the eugenicists want ritual sacrifice public and out in the open. once i started looking for it I can't stop seeing it. Especially the Gaza genocide, this is a zio-judeo-eugenicist mass ritual sacrifice being pushed right in everyone's face. I assume this is the kind of thing you're referring to? and this kind of behavior is going to spread?

>>7548
>zio-judeo-eugenicist
Make that zio-eugencist.
The Zionists split off from Judaism, they're not representing the Jews, and it's questionable whether they should still count as Jews. The majority of Jews lives in the world-diaspora, they're appalled by and resolutely opposes the slaughter in Gaza. Don't shove those people in the mud, they're not party to the bloodshed.

>>7549
>The Zionists split off from Judaism, they're not representing the Jews, and it's questionable whether they should still count as Jews
Sorry but no, I am not religious and will not litigate what a "true jew" is to try and give jews special soft treatment. I won't say crusaders or the KKK weren't Christian, or that ISIS members weren't Muslim. I grant that Zios are obviously a sect and subset of Jews, obviously not the only tendency of Judaism currently or in history.

>The majority of Jews lives in the world-diaspora, they're appalled by and resolutely opposes the slaughter in Gaza.
False. The majority of non-Israeli Jews identify with Israel and support Israel's existence, and essentially all Israeli Jews do so. A minority of non-Israeli Jews have been substantially critical of the current genocide, but most of that minority still think Israel should exist. Zionism is the leading and representative form of Judaism today.

>Don't shove those people in the mud, they're not party to the bloodshed.
They're in the mud and most are party to the bloodshed. They're far from the only ones though. The whole Anglo-Burgeroid 4th Reich axis of terror is responsible for this. The uninvolved are not completely innocent– we should have stopped this long ago and still could if we weren't so pathetic.

Look, the minority of Jews that burn Israeli flags and hold their yearly "death to Israel" conventions have my sympathy and support. I wish them the best, I hope they can purge Judaism of these psychopaths and redeem it. But that's not an easy task, and it's questionable whether it can be accomplished. More likely, this filthy zio-judaism is going to continue to spread and start fires around the world even after Israel is annihilated.

I emphasize that these are "zio-judeo-eugenicist mass ritual sacrifices" because zionism separate from judaism is not religious and has no religious rituals. The IOF is going into Gaza and literally conducting traditional Jewish religious rituals on top of the mass graves of those they're slaughtering. And in fact, the entire genocide is being portrayed by their rabbis as a deliberate reenactment of Talmud myths where enemies of the Israelites were mass-slaughtered by the israelits and yaweh– a mass religious sacrifice. This can't be ignored or denied.

>>7551
we are talking a genocide where they conduct operations to burn entire neighborhoods into ashes and then name the operation "Operation 8th Candle of Hanukkah." this is just the inescapable reality of the situation.

>>7548
It's a vanguard of the project. It could still be excused as "Israel lashing out" and localized to Palestine - that was always the test case for this sort of thing, and it was set up as such since the 1990s. What has been eliminated from the narrative is that prior to Reagan, slave-like support for Israel was not a thing, which is why the US was considered a somewhat neutral broker between the Arabs and Israelis - obviously a broker with interests, but the US presernted as not wanting to be dragged into a race war in the Middle East or any of this Israeli faggotry.

One thing to note throughout all of this is the shadow of Bush and the ghouls who came in with him in 2000. They already tested the waters for what they can make people accept with glorification of torture, beyond anything that was normalized during the world wars. Believe it or not, there are expectations and codes war follows even in relatively brutal conditions. There was an expectation among the Nazis that atrocities were wrong, whatever their screamers said. The Germans would even lecture their allies about "human rights" hilarious enough. Funny how Krauts operate, always the shittiest of allies. Japan did not like having such worthless deadweight and mostly they were taking on Asia on their own and went one on one with the United States. But that's a whole other thing. Point I was making is that glorifying the thrill of torture is a new thing, and it was only possible with what was seeded in the 1990s. If you did that in the past, the entire base of society would immediately refuse to work, refuse to comply, would stall everything. It took mass drugging and an inquisition beyond anything humanity ever knew to reach this total siege, and that was what the Nazi vanguardists wanted Germany to be, at the expense of actually winning the war. Most warriors, nasty as they are, are not impressed by atrocities for their own sake. Fags are. That's what the torture porn is for - to impress fags.

So I don't really pin this on the spirit of Judaism, since the people pushing the torture porn the most are Anglo perverts and their aristo fellow travelers. Zionism is part of that network, granted a function that the Jewish interest was historically tied to - to slavery and racism. The precursors of Zionism had a lot to do with boost the South and the continued rebellion after the ACW, because that was a historically Jewish interest in transatlantic slave trade and its continuation in the Americas. But, many of the Jews are poor people who had nothing to do with that, who were mostly minding their own business. They're not going to apologize for it, but it's not like they live to enslave and torture things. The Nazis and aristos who always favored this sort of alliance do live to enslave and torture, and that's what leads Zionism. It's not a special quality of the Jews that allows them to get away with it, if that's the thinking you have. This stuff has been litigated enough elsewhere about what really happened. I think people everywhere can see what is happening is, you know, bad. Try to put yourself in the position of an Israeli without dual citizenship, who is stuck there under leaders who throw their dual citizenship in your face and draft you to stand and die while they run off with they money like Netanyahu will do. He's a slimy product of the institutions that created so much of this mess. They're not happy to be pushed into this situation and told their only purpose is to wage a race war so their masters can reap the rewards. Doesn't make "Israel" worth keeping, and I'm not going to throw my life away for them. This can be pushed precisely because Israel's existence is fake as fuck - a mafia state in the desert. It's like having Las Vegas as a country but worse. It's filth. (Speaking of, I would be happy if Las Vegas were wiped off the face of the Earth, a modern Sodom if there ever was one.)

>>7552
"Modern Zionist Judaism" is such a joke. When God was killed, that was not limited to the Christian God. There is no way to reconcile the current world religions with the situation, but religions exist overwhelmingly to deny that the new exists. It's not possible to make a new religion out of nothing, nor possible to reconcile all of these people who believe different things. The only idea religion can have is global Satanism, and that's what they're pushing right now. It won't work.

>>7550
>>7551
>>7552
You are making a huge mistake, don't lob the Jews in with the Zionists.

The Zionist project is self destructing, their military power and their political influence machine will evaporate soon enough, and then there's going to be hell to pay.

We want the people responsible for the slaughter to end up in war-crime tribunals, we don't want any scapegoating or barbarism. The Jews in the diaspora are not the ones doing this. If we offer them a way to distance them selves from the Zionist project, they will take it and disavow Zionism. We'll be free of this horrendous ideology, nobody will try to force that down our throats ever again.

Don't throw that away.

>>7548
The entity's "Zionist phase" is coming to an end. The theft of land will continue, with some of the officers switched out with new ones. It's funny to me that every narrative about this is controlled by the Zionists presently, except the one anyone with any sense would conclude - that the Empire is getting annoyed with the Zionists' screeching, and escaping its utility to the real bosses. The only thing any of these people really believe in is eugenics. "Woke Zionism" has always been the preferred facing the British encourage.

Even the "good Jew" narrative is hemmed into a script - obviously a script that American Jews would prefer to the alternatives on offer, but it also disciplines their behavior and obligates them to toe the line. There are Jews opposed to Israel's bullshit because it puts a target on their backs, but they are perfectly aware of what the moral blame game does and where they're going to wind up, and they don't get to wash themselves clean of guilt in that way - even guilt they had nothing to do with personally, and spent a reasonable effort to prevent. You're seeing in a grand story how "justice" is turned into an unseemly, queer word to be mocked and ridiculed - just as eugenics wants it. Just as the republic was fated to be in the end, because you can never have justice under the law or "the state" as it was presumed to exist. Both are anathema to what we would have considered just or right. The concept that anyone could have it both ways and pretend this works can no longer stand in the 21st century. Too many have seen too much, and it's not possible to rule by ignorance. In the past, rule of ignorance had less to do with the rulers being so clever and more to do with a lack of communication between people and nations. Most people really had nothing to do with someone far away, even though transportation and communication allowed someone to go anywhere else in the world in short time. Most people did not want to be anywhere but some plot of land to call home, preferably a home where they won't be raped and enslaved. Humanity doesn't need that fate to be explained to them, as if they haven't been slaves all this time in the eyes of the institutions and those who contest the political. Now we see that there is no more keeping your head down, and that's what generations since 1914 did and taught their children to do - "just ignore it", as if there can be existence with what came for the world in the 1990s.

You're also seeing the trauma programming on steroids ever since the 1990s, and especially since Bush took over in 2000. The damage done by that is something so many refuse to even acknowledge, because they know there is no coming back from that. To even begin would require lots of heads to roll - heads attached to people who are very much in favor of keeping this rot and death going because this is what they love and value above all, with no one around to tell them no. Heads attached to people who have spent the wealth of all of the world's nation to do nothing more than protect their open plunder of everything and everyone, including their bodies. Slavery doesn't even begin to describe what they intend for us.

Where this leads, honestly, I do not know. I'm writing where I believe it would lead in the best case scenario in my books, but it is far more likely we get "all life dies screaming forever", due to nothing of substance to stop it. The only reason I believe it won't end "like this" is because there have been hints of those who are planning generations ahead of what they really want, and this stage of democide is only intended to last for the next two generations - enough time to exterminate living memory of the "before world". If the powers that be actually believed in "more blood for the blood god", they would not have hesitated as much as they have. They would have gone full Nazi after 2008, not even pretended there would be anything else, and the backing of overt neo-Hitlerism would be total. I'd certainly be dead by now. The greater objectives of those who can contest the world are to rule over mind controlled cattle, or continue fighting for position in a pointless, intractable struggle. None of the "struggle for struggle's sake" retards actually commit to what that would mean, because for them it has always been unserious faggotry of the ugliest sort. If they actually had to live with the consequences of their faggotry, they would cease immediately - but they never do, because they have been coddled by the actors who aren't sniveling retards. Aren't like Trump.

So my guess on the future of so-called Israel is that it will exist as "Israel", but the Zionist ideology is getting trashed, and the settlers are getting shafted. The Empire has always made clear it would rather work with the Arabs and Iranians in the greater region, and Israel hasn't been useful to them for decades. Israel has always been a liability for the empire, and if they cannot make their allies dependent through fear, Israel has no leverage. They would be, and their leadership shall be, supplanted by this Satano-Luciferian thing Bush and the neocons brought in.

The original plan probably was for "eternal Israel" and the glorious backstab. These people really believed they were a-conquering for Jesus and they were going to bring about the Rapture. They've certainly succeeded at shitting up the world when all humanity had to do was drop a ball in a fucking can and end this idiotic cycle. Eugenics could never allow that.

It's also been clear to me that if they really believe in eugenics above all - and many of them do - that within three generations of that, we would be locked into "all life does screaming forever". Nothing else would be possible, and the last embers of independent thought would disappear. Humanity would be, in the legal sense, totally insane and irredeemable. Their brains would start boiling alive, with nothing in the world to reassemble it. Whoever "wins" that would rule over a trash heap. That's what Germanism does to a world, and why their filthy nation and race has to be seen for what it is, it's world-historical purpose.

>>7553
>So I don't really pin this on the spirit of Judaism
>The precursors of Zionism had a lot to do with boost the South and the continued rebellion after the ACW, because that was a historically Jewish interest in transatlantic slave trade and its continuation in the Americas
>not a special quality of the Jews that allows them to get away with it, if that's the thinking you have
agreed on all points, I have just recently realized that being honest & fair about this issue means we have to say "jew" sometimes and not just cover this up by saying "zionist" or "settler" or whatever. it's jewish exceptionalism to make an entire exception in the english language so that a genocide conducted by jews can't be stated as such. it'd be like insisting we can't say "russians invaded Ukraine" or "germans committed the holocaust". Oh Germans you say?? you mean German Reichians? Russians? That's Russian Federationists please. In spite of how bad this all makes the jews look, I do still recognize their current condition is not exceptionally worse than that of many other groups who have been brainwashed by the 4th reich and we can look forward to plenty of more shit from hindufash, christofash, fedorafash etc.

>"Modern Zionist Judaism" is such a joke. When God was killed, that was not limited to the Christian God.
Yes many of the major religions are like this now. Repurposed as cheap hollow nazi MKULTRA tools. Not that they were spotless to begin with ofc.

>>7554
>huge mistake
How??

>don't lob the Jews in with the Zionists
That's just how it is. They are stuck together right now. It's fucked and would ideally be undone, but this attempt to say Zios aren't Jews or a type of Jew is just PR games, there is no point playing these games especially on an anonymous imageboard.

>The Zionist project is self destructing, their military power and their political influence machine will evaporate soon enough
This is cope. There is a substantial chance Israel can keep going on for decades.I hate to think about it but it could be that way. And the Zios won't stop being Zios once Israel is destroyed. If anything they'll become even worse and find new targets.

>people responsible for the slaughter to end up in war-crime tribunals
More cope. This didn't even happen after WWII when most of the world was nominally united against the Germans and the criminals in charge, a small amount of patsies were prosecuted in the Nuremberg trials. Even if/when Israel is destroyed, basically none of the criminals (most of the population) will face any justice. At most you might see Yahoo and a few others in the Hague, and there's no guarantee they'll even get the death penalty.

>The Jews in the diaspora are not the ones doing this
Many literally are funding this, sending donations. And supporting it politically and through various other means.

>If we offer them a way to distance them selves from the Zionist project, they will take it and disavow Zionism
They don't need an offer, those who would truly disavow Israel and genocide already have done so. The rest are onboard with genocide.

>>7555
>the Empire is getting annoyed with the Zionists' screeching, and escaping its utility to the real bosses
My interpretation is that it was always obvious Israel was a temporary entity, it was built to be exploded like the WTC towers. What is going on here is that the mob bosses have come to collect and they have demanded that Israel do its job (start "WWIII") and prove its worth or be cut loose for real. This goes with all the Evangelical programming shit about the apocalypse.

>>7557
>You're also seeing the trauma programming on steroids ever since the 1990s
It's this in combination with the video games, trolling and screen damage. You look at how the Ziomercs act and they are literally like Kojima says in MGS4, they think they're in a video game hella owning and teabagging on the noobs. they think genocide is fortnite. as an aside, see pics. I am thinking that the battle royale genre was to some extent predictive programming for this new kind of mass slaughter.

>>7559
>So my guess on the future of so-called Israel is that it will exist as "Israel",
The Greater Israel/Babylon thing could happen

>>7562
The difference here in one regard is that the "Jewish nation" has no basis. Modern Hebrew is a constructed language with made up names and rituals, and the Zionist ideology is irreligious. They can just as well say they follow the Christ or Allah or Glorious Satan and keep the "Jewish culture" they made up. The Jewish diaspora often wanted nothing to do with "Israel" and had no stake in it. Many times they presented as members of whatever country they were in and were basically that - just with a few weird Jewish things they did that were not typically bothersome, if they were cultural or religious values. European anti-Semitism was not a universal value or anything close, but those who believed in it were really into it.

Go into a Black American community though and I can guarantee you will find Jew-bashing that would make Hitler blush. There are guys who make their way by trying to be black Hitler and mince no words about it.

I actually resent the shorthand of history where "the Germans" or "the Russians" are treated like a hive mind, and important details of what happened are entirely bowled over. You would lose for instance why the Nazis were motivated beyond a "just-so" story of Germanic racism, or some moral aspersion about Germans being bad people, without speaking of what Germans and Germany were and why so many were not happy with the very recent nation-state of Germany. There wasn't a version of this where German Jews were going to be Good Germans. They hated Germany for perfectly understandable reasons, would have been perfectly happy to serve an occupation government run by the British to get some revenge. Those are the dangers of nation-states, especially when they move to cannibalize the nation. The Germans could never raise partisan units worth a shit, but they could find slimy collaborators to shit up the world. This made invading Germany a lot easier than it would if Germans really believed the enemy was worse than the nightmare of living under Nazi eugenism. The true believers of Nazism didn't care about defending anything. They were grabbing the gold and getting the fuck out, which is what Nazism and its related faggotry always was. No one is going to sacrifice themselves to preserve that shit - and besides, the Russians were not monsters, despite having every reason to exterminate the entire German race then and there and think nothing of it. To the average German, the British and Americans were always the Great Satan, the Ultimate Evil, the people who were bombing civilians purely for the sadism of it all and seemed to be awfully cozy with the Nazis who sold them out.

>>7563
If they had some plan to move history according to plan a century in advance, it hasn't worked too well. Israel formed by carving up the Ottoman Empire along with the rest of the region, and eventually the British saw Israel as a useful beach-head to "civilize" the Arabs in accord with eugenics. For its early history, the Zionist Entity isn't exactly "liked" by anyone, except the British government who did it all for eugenics. Eisenhower isn't exactly happy to step in to clean up Israel's messes, and while the British and Americans have the "special relationship", the US had no such relationship with the Zionist Entity, which always spat on them and caused the Americans nothing but misery. Israel played everyone in the imperial contenders to continue what it does, and would make strange bedfellows with China if they had to (which is the current China-Israel relationship btw, one reason China is stepping in to rubberstamp imperial plans since the US has no credibility).

Basically, Israel seemed like a good idea to the British in 1947, to get the Zionists out of their sight and somewhere where they could fight more eugenics race wars and make the world suffer. From the 1970s on, they're not getting anything out of the British-Israel relation, except making their American vassals miserable. Because Israel is despised by much of the world, their only remaining relevance is to threaten unlimited terror to make the world like them, and that only works for so long before they start singing "throw the Jew down the well". Meanwhile, the US assholes would love to get this project they did with Bush in every country, and went a long way towards normalizing the Saudi monarchy. The big goal would be to bring Iran fully into the project, and that's what the threats against Iran are - not to invade it, but to keep them in a siege state of mind until they agree to eugenism in full. That's happening now that they worked out the theological difficulties, seem to want some variant of Islam as the base for their Satano-Luciferian world order, or their efforts to make it so.

Makes a lot of sense when you figure out what Islam really is. They say in the name they're here to rape and enslave you.

>>7562
>How??
The Zionists want you to attack Jews, they feed on that ideologically.

>That's just how it is. They are stuck together right now.
i don't think so, Zionism has degraded Israeli society so much that it has become alien to Jews living in the diaspora. Dissociation will be easy, you just have to play along.

>There is a substantial chance Israel can keep going on for decades.
I would have agreed with this not that long ago, but that's no longer true. And they're planning to go in to Lebanon, from the looks of it. That'll be the final death-nail, maybe a few years.

>This didn't even happen after WWII
Not sure how far we can draw conclusions based on events after ww2
>basically none of the criminals
>will face any justice.
>At most you might see Yahoo and a few others in the Hague
I don't think justice can be had either, but the impunity to commit genocide, that could be done away with perhaps.

>Many literally are funding this
Some are, the majority is not

>those who would truly disavow Israel and genocide already have done so.
No i think there's going to be alot more in the near future, we should keep the door open.

Eugene, I am curious about your theory that ritual sacrifice has shaped humanity. What do you mean exactly, is this explained somewhere in one of your books? Do you have proofs/evidence of this?

I am skeptical that ritual sacrifice was a major influence on human evolution because:
>Ritual sacrifice was generally haphazardly targeted, thus would not have sufficed as a selective breeding or domestication program
>have not seen any evidence that it was or is currently widespread in pre/non-agrarian societies, meaning it would have only been a major thing in the past ~10 thousand years (?)

>>7565
What?

>>7571
Nothing about ritual sacrifice is "accidental" or "random", like someone decided that it's time to feed the children to Moloch, and everyone "randomly" decided to agree to it, and made a solemn oath that it was an unmentionable. Give me a fucking break. We've seen enough of this sacrifice in the present year, and in the ancient world, this was out in the open. They admitted they did it. You take for granted the Christian injunction against overt ritual sacrifice, when the rule of human history has been that ritual sacrifice is standard, in every tribe, in one way or another. There are tribes and religions where they can acknowledge it's, you know, bad if it becomes a rule. But, ritual sacrifice is always there, and it is prominent in Christianity since they make the symbol the guy on the cross, and invoke a cannibalistic ritual every week.

I have no "historical proof" to claim it is factual, but I have yet to see any evidence that this isn't what humans did in their early existence. Every family marks who the retarded child is and shames them, if they exist. That is what humans did by choice, until it became mandated by tribal society and the Great Taboo. The greatest lie is to claim that humans did anything else as their normative behavior, at that local scale. This is what humans are - any cursory investigation of the children of the human race show this viciousness, until they figure out the hard way (since this retarded race only responds to beatings) what happens when you let that go on. By the time they see enough of it, it's too late. The ritual started.

It is not a rule that the ritual is "natural" or "inevitable", since humans largely avoid doing this, and there is no prescribed "natural cause" for it, other than the taboo regarding intelligence which is constant in all human societies. Even with that, not every human agrees that every "retarded" child MUST die. It is a rule, and a necessary rule, that once someone is "retarded", they can never be redeemed. That is eternal, and to do otherwise is to shirk the ritual humiliations.

The point is that the basis for ritual sacrifice is "retarded", and this is why I was entirely justified to hate forever the human race - for letting this go on, when they understood the results and glorified that, for the thrill of doing so. The way it worked is that anyone who refused would be ritualistically rejected, shamed, ridiculed, and over generations, "screened out", while the most vicious would now be consciously and meticulously selected for. This is what Galton's eugenic creed did, excluding all other values that would be selected for. Galton specifically rejected "points" or any independent judgement, many of which were raised by the aristocratic order who balked at being told they would be bred like dogs.

The only way this is enforced - intended beforehand - is to restore ritual sacrifice to prominence, then make it the sole law above all, then to maximize it and make it a total system. That is the entire point of making the sacrifice a ritual. A mother killing a child who will not survive is not a ritual sacrifice. Even a mother doing this for arbitrary sadism is not. It is the collective will to chant for it that is the basis of the human race as "human" - the first and most holy taboo of their race, that distinguished them from animals, because humans had this symbolic language to chant the koans and knowingly grin about what they were doing. Once it starts, it must become the first principle of the Great Theory that the ritual sacrifice is natural and glorious above all others. This is obviously ruinous, and why humans almost immediately regret the birth of the human race. Yet, it never goes away, because it is always something that humans return to - the "eternal regression to the primordial light", which Theosophy explicitly invokes, as to other Luciferian and Satanic moral systems.

Tribal societies without settlements practice ritual sacrifice and understand its meaning. That is seen today and they will tell you this is something they do, or at least did, and that they understand the reference perfectly. They could relate the concept to the ritual sacrifice Christianity entails, which is going to be one of the first selling points Christianity offers to the heathens - with the Christian hoping the heathen doesn't know of the Christian's actual conduct of hitherto unknown levels of human sacrifice. By now though, most of the world knows what the Christians are, and they're finally capable of calling the cult of the Christ what it is. About fucking time.

I am placing the "birth of the human race" much later than an imagined biological birth of "homo sapiens sapiens" - since I believe the dogmatic interpretation of Darwinian anthropology is made up shit, more than half of it derived from Masonic stupidity. It's less credible than the Yakub story from the Nation of Islam - that's how little faith I put in the scientific racist theory of human origins. What is not controversial is that every human tribe is familiar with ritual sacrifice, and its normalization in civilization is not surprising. Only the naive and those selected to die are told "there is no ritual sacrifice". Eventually, a normal human will ask questions about the society they live in and terrible stories they heard, and some decency in the world compels a human to tell another human enough of the horrible truth to figure it out, and their behavior adjusts accordingly. If you truly think ritual sacrifice "can't happen here", you're not going to make it in life. It always happens - for humans, by the volition of humanity's spirit rather than any natural requirement or an ulterior motive. So far as there is an "ulterior motive", it is that once it starts, it does not end by any decency in humans. Necessity of the ritual itself overrides anything saying no to it once it is activated. The only thing humans can do is escape it somehow, usually by mitigating their contact with other humans. This is how humans become "human" and adopt a greater sense of self - one that is familiar to us and distinguishes humans from animals. If the sense of self existed in a humanity without human sacrifice, or in a human society where human sacrifice is shunted far below its PARAMOUNT value, humans would think of themselves very differently. The "cult of the ego" that prevailed in the 20th century would be a self-evident absurdity at the least, and probably grounds for immediate extermination of the transgressor given what we know about our human history.

If you're going to say, "THAT'S RITUAL SACRIFICE TOO", it is not. It is not ritual sacrifice to defend oneself against a clear and present danger which announces its tyranny proudly. And so one of the dominant arguments for the state, the law, and the general fear of the human condition, is for the leader to say "we are not going to allow this to go overboard, and no one is ritually sacrificed without the chief's tacit or explicit approval". After many cycles of development, this eventually becomes the earliest concept of imperium, which is in more developed civilization an explicit principle. The Romans understood the basis of the entire legal code as imperium, rather than the system of favors which was never enshrined with any legal status. The favors were part of the traditions of Rome and expected as the cultural basis - what made the Roman nation "work" - but at the end of the day, imperium was the final decision, rather than conceits about the state being "nice" or there to be your friend.

The Roman example can be found in similar fashion in many developed civilizations, given a similar theory - sometimes stated with different executive expectations, but always placing the power of life and death in the hand of an executive, which is necessary one or a few people rather than an imagined "blob" or "natural law" doing this. "Natural law" does not exist in that sense - it's one of the most basic concepts in my book, and the one Germanism advances most aggressively to impose their Satanist cosmology on reality.

You could have imperium without ritual sacrifice - the job of imperium is acknowledged as something done for purposes other than the thrill of doing it, and anyone who thinks imperium is "fun" or good in of itself would be seen by Romans or the Chinese scholars as worse than insane.

Basically "the republican ideal" the ancients understood, and what the Greeks knew and Plato wanted to destroy, has been mangled by revisionism to become unmentionable - in fact, INADMISSIBLE without a blank stare. The republican idea had nothing to do with "natural law", a concept which had no application to Roman, Greek, Christian, Islamic, or proper liberal theories of the state and law. Only the eugenic creed proclaimed this "natural law" which no one in the world invoked in that fashion. A demonic religion like Hinduism would be far more likely to "look the other way", but guess how India is noted to be the most corrupt shithole of all nations on Earth. The Chinese theories of despotism were pretty clear about "natural law" having nothing to do with the imperial or state claims, which were very clearly led by human beings and their authority to act.

Only the eugenic creed would be so brazen to invoke "natural law". The ancient Satanism of Babylon or Egypt or Ba'al-worship in later incarnations understood that nothing about their Satanic godhead was "natural" in that sense.

For that matter, the Nazi legal theory was not 100% "eugenist" in the way Galtonism prescribed. Schmidt is working within existing German precedent to declare a permanent state of exception as the default political state of the human race (one which is awfully close to exhorting open ritual sacrifice, but which still recognizes that there is a law and policy which has to be consistent for this authority to work). The full eugenic creed would be far beyond the Schmidt state of exception, or even the philosophical anarchism of the imperial ideologues. It would in principle go beyond "Ingsoc" or the worst dystopias imagined. It could only exist with exultant shouting taken to its logical conclusion - "all life dies screaming, forever". That is at the heart of ritual sacrifice and why it is carried out in this highly specific way. Doing it that way grants to the ritual its power, its force that makes the suitable impression on human intelligence and sentiment.

Ingsoc in 1984 is, compared to what Orwell knew was ahppening at the time, a relatively tame tyranny. Winston is undoubtedly guilty of the crimes he is accused of, and almost certainly was a sexual pervert with no restraints on his lust - and so he would be described by the understanding common in that society as a homosexual with the pathology common to homosexuality. He's also, frankly, a shitty person deserving of what he got. The book is set up this way to facilitate the thought experiment and allow the reader to see it, but it should be seen that the Party, contrary to its statements, is grossly inefficient at its torture task, requiring specialists everywhere to operate its cult and wasting needless time on what would be a trivial case, unless someone saw the entire society as a social experiment for gathering information on lab rats - which was already the core purpose of the Satanic ethos Orwell himself held and represented.

To make all of those threads short - the only thing "natural law" could invoke that was truly natural was a ritual sacrifice that likely formed the spirit of "human". Any technological or biotechnological origin of the "human race" explains very little "in of itself", because all of the human biological and neurological faculties almost certainly arose gradually, rather than "all at once". That is, the likely natural condition of humanity is that they were "proto-human" for a very long time - or, humans are simply less removed from the animal kingdom than their conceit of themselves requires them to believe. In any event, intelligence and symbolic language did not "necessitate" ritual sacrifice, or grant to it automatically moral power. We could very easily have rejected this practice and regarded it as so abominable that the ritual sacrifice would be turned in reverse. Rather than a taboo to uphold this conspiracy, the ritual would be executed to cleanse the world of nascent Satanics whenever they start this shit. The history of humanity would be very different if this insinuation game were handled correctly. This is probably because humans are "more animal", and their peculiarly "human" qualities, which guided their eventual full intellectual development, were themselves the result of the ritual sacrifice and glorification thereof. It was, and remains, life's prime want - FOR HUMANS. Still, it would be very trivial to start exterminating the Satanics for this insinuation game now. Not only has that happened, but it was the expectation of even brutal societies - that there were certain standards that must not be crossed, and the maximal glorification of the ritual sacrifice was one of them. Ritual sacrifice existed as the causative birth of the "human race", and all of its other development was incidental as a result of this core essence. But, it would have been recognized by all but the truest believers that the torture cult could not consume all that exists. In practice, the warbands of primitive humanity would move to and fro, exterminating nascent "better humanity" repeatedly until the cycle established itself. This is the sort of thing I reference by the term "Satanic cycle" - which is the standard operating procedure of ritual sacrifice in our time. It always begins with insinuations and excuses, to glorify the sniveling cowardice of it all. Germanism is just a uniquely offensive version of this, adapted to its niche.

Basically, every time humanity tried to do the obvious this to mitigate ritual sacrifice's spread, and develop qualities apart from it, such that ritual sacrifice would have been a temporary artifact, "those people" would step in. First they were selected for by the prevalence of early sacrifice as the pleasure of early humans or proto-humans, for lack of anything in the world to stop it or say no to it. Then, when many early humans banded together out of dire necessity or broke from the Satanic cycle - since there was no natural law preventing early humans from renouncing their race and finding whatever they could salvage from life - it was necessary to perfect the ritual sacrifice and escalate it for its partisans. It is a pecuilarity of humans - a race that is half-sentient, its language dominated by jabbering and displays of pointless malice - that allowed ritual sacrifice its moral power, where a better race would have mitigated these factors instead of enshrining them in civilization and its civic cults.

Humans never had to be "this". Even in civilization, humans had ample opportunity to break from ritual sacrifice - and we did, which is why we are able to have any pleasant conversation like this. Humans had, as late as the last third of the 20th century, everything they needed to stop the ritual sacrifice cycle immediately and permanently. It was so clear that, in spite of humanity's visible madness in the past century, there were enough of us who believed that, out of self-interest if nothing else, the cycle would be abated. Very likely this cycle would not end without significant bloodshed, and due to the lack of any real reason for reproduction or large families, humanity's population would have truly plummeted on its own without the present democide. This isn't the first time a gigantic wave of death engulfed humanity in its recorded history. The horror of the eugenic creed is not that so many will die, but that it has selected the most monstrous to live and glorifies the thrill of doing it - "purifying the race". This is not unexpected with a more thorough and proper understanding of human history and its faculties, which is far beyond anything I could write. But, maybe I can nudge humanity towards a better understanding - not that I believe I should be an authoritative source, and I would prefer someone steal my thinking without attribution so long as it's not bastardized and turned into more eugenic creed faggotry.
Humans may still yet find a way out. But, it is no longer possible with anything "in" them, or any course of action they are likely to initiate or consciously pursue in any way. It is now in the hands of the world, which has never been particularly kind or speedy about its corrections of Abomination, but always does so in its way. We could have done this the far easier way, but there is no undoing what was locked in at 2020. Now it's permanent. Failed race.

The key breaking point for humanity was refusing to stop eugenism before 1914, and everyone egging it on despite having no good reason to, including those who were supposed to be our "friends". Realistically, the eugenists would have to be rooted out. You'd need to do something roughly as terrible as "Ingsoc" at the very least, and probably much worse and much more thorough to purge the believers. They were installed in places high and low and prepared for a protracted struggle if anyone dared to say no to them. It's the only way humans would really know how to handle a Satanic race like the eugenists, for lack of any particularly effective mind control.

I believe - and this is what I hope to describe in the seventh book if/when I get to it - that the "way out" humanity will eventually choose is effective mind control, which comes about when humans stop being full retard about what we really "are". Effective mind control as I understand it would preclude the eugenic creed as a ruling idea, and so, basically by accident, humanity is "spared". But, it will only happen when humanity accepts its despotic nature and stops pretending. I believe there was a faction within humanity, inside and outside of the eugenists, that has always seen this as the true goal, and has been more than happy to let the eugenists shit up the world, so long as their key strongholds are never attacked and granted sacrosanctity. It is the presence of such an interest that gave Galtonism its peculiarities, rather than "blind ambition" alone. That is, it was intended to serve a purpose, and everyone who went along with it is a fucking Satanic fag. But, they're correct in seeing mind control and slavery as the human default. Humans don't know what to do with freedom in any sense, sadly. We could have done this far more peacefully, and that was the mistake I made - believing that, if humans simply refused a free society which would have come to the conclusion without any of this rigamarole within several generations, humans could be made to tolerate a "nicer mind control slavery". It doesn't work that way. I know because those who thought about such a thing - they do exist - were terminated and disrupted in even their most basic activities. The eugenic creed cannot stand that idea. The thrill of torture must be maximized - that is the way Reagan set for us.

As for eugenics itself being "the effective mind control", its tenets are anathema to any way humans actually think, what intelligence even is, and anything that would be "controlled". The only thing eugenics knows how to do is torture things, and it has selected for that trait above any other. It can't not. On the side, the people pursuing the "real project" were interested in cutting up brains and using us for their experiments, most of which were premised on faulty conceits that would have been avoided if Germanism were refuted from the outset and seen for what it was. Humans are not particularly smart or interested in truth in the way I am, though. I'm one of those strange people who finds this intrinsically interesting, rather than a means to some ulterior motive. Most humans aren't like me.

One "silver lining" I have seen is that, almost by some inertia correcting the abomination, and without really knowing what they are doing, humans are coming around to accepting the "peaceful mind control", which is one reason to flood the zone with faggotry to promote the Satanic ethos, to inject it to "shut that down".

As for the prospect of a return to a free society, I do not think there is any significant force in humanity that wants that, or even understands what a "free society" would mean in the present conditions. A free society in the past was premised on democracy and armies comprised of militia conscripts, some of which were experienced and skilled in war but understood a functional polity has to be fed, requires technology and everything that allows that army to actually win. One mistake I made was presuming wars have anything to do with "winning" in that sense, and that's what I get for being a sickly coward who never won a fight in his life. Perhaps I could have listened more to those who were skilled in fighting, and that was my failing. I have no excuse. But, it's not like the braying of retarded "toughness" makes speaking of the truth easy. Living in a country designed to produce faggy Einsatzgruppen really distorts that sense of what actually works in a battle and what war is.

If humanity wanted a free society in the next two centuries, it would be a curious sort of "freedom". Basically - and this was the eugenists' thinking - humanity would realize that the caste system that was violently imposed was allowed to go on, and see that the castes - the classes - can never reconcile or co-exist, and each could in principle live apart from the others, and see alien castes as something to avoid. The greatest problem with this is that the "Alpha" castes exists on the basis of the thrill of torture and has been fed the image of ritual sacrifice. That is what the establishment of eugenic caste was for - to feed the torture cult, as befits the god of any caste society. That's what Hinduism is, a disgusting religion. That version of history would require the Alphas to be impossibly benevolent and work against their entire world-historical purpose and stated objectives, and everything that has already been put in motion. It is also a strategy they cannot unilaterally impose - the "backup" is a reversion to nation-state conflict, in case anyone loses faith in the eugenic creed. Hence "multipolarism" and the need for the narrative of such - it's the threat to prevent a global counter-movement against the eugenic creed, which would probably have moved to put down the eugenists violently and without any regard of "freedom" or any such conceit. It would be a resistance of dire necessity, and only by mobilizing existing nations and regions would the eugenic creed be able to pit race against race, interest against interest.

But, every other caste could, with little effort, see what was done to them, and refuse en masse to even regard the eugenic caste system as worth keeping. They would show up and do the minimum in everything, abrogate completely the ritual sacrifice expectation Fabian education imposed. That was the desperate and naive thinking I kept having, and it will never work that way. I don't think there's a version of this where a large base refuses to play the game, without the torture and threats from "enablers" - those who do so out of a deep spiritual conviction that the thrill of torture is class collaborationist, which it is. Eugenics exists primarily to select against the existence of such a base, from cradle to grave. By now, that has perpetuated too long. I'm in the last age cohort that really remembers what "the old world" was, and then only faintly. The generation prior to us is being liquidated and exhausted rapidly, was set against each other and "crushed" by the creed, basically for trying to maintain some decency and failing due to their feeble numbers. After 2000, the children were openly consigned to ritual sacrifice pits, and during the critical period, enforcement of the eugenic religion was at its peak. You couldn't say "eugenics" online without the terror machine coming at you, even as an invalid. If you had a job to lose, thoughtcrime was death. Satanic race. Failed race.

I think the closest thing humans will get to "freedom" is to abandon humanity altogether, and mitigate social contact to appropriate channels. Effectively, humans would have nothing to do and nothing to say to each other, quietly recording the passage of the eugenists and the Satanists. It would be concluded that allowing despotism to win is probably the only way it could end, and whatever happens will happen. We have no say in which despot gets to rule us, but we could resist the kind of despot the eugenists want. Despotic societies are the default for the human race, anyway, because every time an "other system" was proposed, the entrenched interest in ritual sacrifice would always reject it on principle. Every "other system" aside from the republic would entail the effective end of the "human subject" as a serious consideration of political life, and the subsequent elevation of select of the lowest class to start repairing the damage, since the lowest class and its interest was the only one in humanity who ever actually wanted this to be different. The idea of having to submit to a RETARD would offend every sentiment humans ever held, but that would be the requirement.

Really though, at the end of the day, nothing of the human project or its existence "really matters". It's not salvageable. The human being itself is not salvageable. Only parts of us may be worth keeping in this world.
That, unsurprising to me, is what has become the case. So many of humanity have elected to become husks of what they might have been in another world, because it's better that way. It isn't even like they're depressed or suffering or even necessarily weak. There are people who are basically decent and show up to work and aren't that bad, but there's just nothing "there", and they feel no desire to do better than a low standard nor do they have any rich private life. I had a few people like that come up to me when I was younger and say they feel they're so boring, even though they're trying to be exceptional and "stand out" as was the moral philosophy promoted during the 1990s. Some of them were naive - the most common case were people from foreign countries who weren't yet acclimated to what America REALLY was, especially since the mask hadn't fully come off and there was still a perfunctory effort to look like America and humanity was still there to do something. They also tended to be "slightly dull" - though they had a lot more sentiment and spark in their minds than many of the supposed "intelligent ones" who eugenics selected and promoted and shoved in our face as the natural leaders. Anyway, when we saw the worst of the worst promoted harder than ever during the 1990s, and it became the utter insanity on display after 2000, especially when Obamarama began, that demoralizes quickly the sort of people who might have been happy to go along to get along and were basically decent. Later in life I see people who I would clock as basically that sort, but now they're in the monstro institution as hospital orderlies and get to see this shitheap around them and the stark caste system that we're not allowed to talk about as what it is. To even begin explaining the prospect of that is INADMISSIBLE on contact, because false egalitarianism is a holy shibboleth despite the open betrayal of equality in every thought and deed that is in the prevalent ideology. A lot of people will say this is bullshit, but they never go as far as suggesting what the world is, before they are attacked or something "jumps in front" - the sort I call the "cajolers" who I have a special hatred for.

I figure that, as I have, a good number of people "split their mind" in a way that allows them to cope with this society as well as they're going to, even knowing it will accelerate the death rate. That was intended and imposed by the eugenists, who are exempted from all of this by the way. They get a free ride, university paid for, jobs lined up for them. They laugh at what they've done to us. They do not struggle, and never did. It's disgusting that this has gone on and the only idea is to shout down anyone who says it happens, and they are religious about the taboo against that. Fucking Masonic shit.

>>7574
>Nothing about ritual sacrifice is "accidental" or "random", like someone decided that it's time to feed the children to Moloch, and everyone "randomly" decided to agree to it, and made a solemn oath that it was an unmentionable. Give me a fucking break. We've seen enough of this sacrifice in the present year, and in the ancient world, this was out in the open
Excuse me if I can't find the right word exactly, but I am not saying this at all. I'm saying I haven't seen any evidence that the systematic ways that people were targeted for sacrifice would have sufficed to actually biologically or "genetically" engineer humanity. Admittedly I haven't researched this heavily, but as far as I know, you could get sacrificed if:
>you just pissed off the wrong people (you could argue this selects for obedience and groupthink I guess, but I doubt this was very effective beyond simply terrorizing people and forcing people to be subversive in secret)
>you were an unlucky attractive young virgin woman
>you were born with a physical deformity or acquired a disability (this is probably the only thing that could have possibly been consistently screened out by ritual sacrifices, but most said deformities and disabilities are not even heritable)
>you were an unlucky slave

These are not "random" or "accidental" but don't seem to me to have much in common with dog breeding programs or other techniques that actually have shaped species. As well, lots of people who were sacrificed had other family members or progeny who survived anyway.

I agree the modern eugenic cult is actually trying to domesticate and engineer humanity into separate species like in brave new world. I also agree ritual sacrifice is a massive part of human culture continuing to this day, definitely.

>>7594
Ritual sacrifice is not done for eugenic purposes, nor is eugenics entirely what it purports to be and nothing more. The eugenists each have their interest in the project - the ideology entails this endless intercine struggle for stupid shit. The eugenists are different in that they arrest history, seize the state, in a particular fashion. It isn't proper to speak of "eugenics" in any modern sense and apply that to past societies, or to natural selection.

There is no "ulterior motive" to ritual sacrifice, like this exists for any particular purpose or necessity. Ritual sacrifice is the point - I keep emphasizing that, but the concept was inadmissible when laid out as what it is, and what it means for human existence.

You'd have to argue that there is something "in" humans other than ritual sacrifice and its consequences - that the existence of humanity has not been utterly beholden to this practice as the prime want. If you believed that, then you would have to account for why human history turned out as it did, why we see ritual sacrifice reproduced, and why it is impossible to say no to it - why this ritual has its effect on humanity. If humanity were not this, it would be trivial to reject in total the entire ritual, call it the abomination it is, and anyone insinuating that it should be normal would be dragged out and exterminated for disturbance of the peace. The eugenists rely on this being the only "way out" and codified an ideology which locked in something that was always dominant in the human spirit - to purge humanity of anything it acquired. In principle, humanity did everything it did to feed the sacrifice, the orgy, the humiliation of the weak. That's what you're working for, what you're aspiring to. Every other concept of what humans would be became inadmissible, because the drive for ritual sacrifice dominated and subjugated all other aims - made humanity into slaves of the ritual, of the orgy, of the priesthoods who saw it as the shortest path to power over the mind and body of people.

Intelligence - the conceit of eugenics - always seeks the shortest and most efficient route to solve its problem, absent a world which imposes a sobering influence on it. When intelligence was "purified" and turned into eugenic property, the last potential of anything in the world to "change" humans, was effectively eliminated. That was what most of humanity hoped and prayed for - that something in the world would show humans their folly, so that most of humanity who was born to suffer and die would no longer have to live like this. It was always known that there was nothing "in" humans that would change this by imperious or willful assertion that it "should", or that individual agency counted for much in political society. Individual agency exists, but it is always beholden to the dominant ritual sacrifice, or the ruling ideas aristocracy insinuates freely. For aristocracy, the thrill of torture is a joke. The favored always get a free ride, everything handed to them, and laugh at those who are made to abase themselves and struggle. False egalitarianism is aristocracy's game, not ours.

That said, it would not be possible to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that ritual sacrifice is all humans is. There is always doubt that can be raised. But, the law of the world is guilty until proven innocent - and humanity has been given more than enough of a presumption of innocence, and failed every single time.

What can be done is, given the near axiomatic success of the cult over any other value extant in human society, to see that this does not end on its own term. There is no reconciliation with "the thrill of torture must be maximized", and that has been the point of espousing a unique right of transgression. That is the spirit of aristocracy, which has selected for itself within humanity generally. Anyone who truly disagrees is locked out, culled, humiliated, and lives to suffer because humans, at their core, really don't know anything else. They never did, and now, they never will - at least AS HUMANS. Aristocracy also maintains a mythology that they are a race apart from the rest of us - it is the central dogma about themselves as something other than "human", what makes them aristocracy. It is through aristocracy that all other distinctions of humanity are possible. Nothing in nature mandated "social classes" as such, and the social classes that exist never map on to something that was materially necessary. If it did, the class distinctions would arise from the sector of economic life someone inhabits primarily, rather than any social hierarchy. Aristocracy, property, institutional power (technology), and the associations of fellowship that conspire have nothing to do with anything productive, economic, or "material", aside from what they extract from the one class which really does all of the work - the lowest class. Every other class that labors does so because the humiliation of the lowest class is the standard for the human race, for human society, for the human project. There is no other way for slavery to not end with immediate rejection and the slaves pissing off at the first opportunity. All slaveries in history have understood this as an acute danger to their institution.

All I write here has become completely inadmissible in the current world-system - "crimethink" - because to end the cycle means ending humanity. Means ending any ability the present theories have to predict history.

It should be noted that aristocracy did not exist "just because". There was a material origin of aristocracy, and it was in the technological interest - the most primitive sort of it in early human bands - that first isolated the "laws of motion" allowing aristocratic terror and its forebears to prevail. But, the technologists ultimately arose from the laboring classes, typically the favored grades of the laboring classes. That's what the secret societies emphasize in their conduct - "the best of the workers".

Only the lowest class sought a goal of "abolishing class society" - but they only ever did so because they had no interest in "society" as such, rather than some grand vision to change humanity or the world. The lowest class has always seen the human race correctly as the worst thing in their lives, and seeks to remove themselves from it as much as possible, including from their own bodies. That is what we have always had to do to tolerate the intolerable - life among this demonic race.

I can only imperfectly attempt to speak of this with the time I have, for the others who see that this doesn't work. I have no expectation that this will "change the world", and I would not want to be quoted as a guru. What I write is something other, better men should have written so we didn't have to do this. But, they don't ever want that. They love seeing us suffer more than anything else, no matter what the world or human society turns into.

Perhaps though, there are those of us in the lowest class who can be better than me. I know I'm no saint and that there is so much of us that has been thrown away, in favor of this Gong Show. I don't really care who's "on top". Humanity is trained not to think like me at all.

I used to think there was enough self-interest in humans to mitigate this from becoming what it has become. When 2020 happened, that was the final judgement, from which there is no return. I'm not surprised it has come to this, but I didn't think it would be this stupid and pointless. I gave the favored classes far more credit, thinking they had some plan or technology that would reproduce something. I thought they got their torture out of me and the world, would go on and do whatever they're going to do, and the depopulation would be gradual and increasingly desperate. I didn't fully get that what I saw in their thoughtless screaming really was all they were, and that they are proud of that; and I didn't get why so many were amenable to that, thinking that even if the assholes were never going to change, most of humanity would see that they will just be fucked over and get nothing from it. It turns out humans really do love their slavery, and have been selected to enhance that trait. So, I try with the time I have left to describe why it is that way. I have no interest in relitigating whether ritual sacrifice is fact in court, when the court is stacked with those who love the orgy. I've already seen the procedure of the court and what REALLY operates behind it, moreso in the past three years by seeing it in action. It amazes me how little anyone involved cares or has to work for the torture cult, and how this could easily have not turned into the democidal eugenist nightmare… if only there were something in humanity that really considered that there was anything but this. If there is a better world, it's not for humans, won't have anything to do with humans. The truly best of humanity have long ago shirked the human spirit, saw it correctly as irredeemable, and tried whatever they could so this world could be tolerable to live in. But, they'd rather shriek about someone being ugly than anything else, because it's "win-win" by the political thought for humans.

Eugene, what are your thoughts on punk rock and gangster rap?
Do you agree that theyre overrated in terms of personal philosophy?

The music and fashion can be enjoyed, but not the more immersive aspects.

>>7636
I never understood the appeal of either. It always seemed like the ruling class insist "you're supposed to like this" rather than any organic like for it. The things most people like are simple songs and music. A lot of people don't listen to any music at all, consider it to be brain rotting. I only listen to music because it is something to cope with the constant assault of terror I lived under from being forcibly drugged, shocked, humiliated, and put up as an example, making those around me suffer. Eugenics wanted that. After knowing nothing but that for 20 years, and never knowing how to really live or appear normal, wouldn't you escape to music? But, when people turn to music, a lot of what they listen to is instrumental, or much like classical music. Lots of guys play the banjo or something like that because that was the thing they did. The music produced by ruling institutions is intentionally artificial and queer, and you can see this change compared to music of the past, which was just some people recording songs they would sing live. There is a marked transformation of music that came in force during the 1980s, and that was all oligarchy. Much of what is "popular" is aristocratic in its value - their idea of what we are "supposed" to be. So, I hate punk with a passion, and gangster rap is slop. Ghetto ass people don't even listen to that. Very often ghetto people don't listen to anything at all. There are a lot more weeaboos and gamers in ghetto life, lots of Yugioh shit. You're more likely to find some white country hicks listening to black gangster music than actual black people, and I've heard some tirades from black people over the years about how that shit was produced by the Jews to destroy them.

Anyway, I think people are better than the low images of themselves given to them for public consumption - always designed to be the worst versions of the lower classes, to suggest the world is horrible and push them into consumer slop and the comfort of advertising jingles. It really is Satanic and insidious. But, eventually, that breaks. I'm seeing more people retreat altogether from media, form their own in an effort to tolerate living, or finding far simpler comforts that are still attainable. It's far easier to lay in bed and refuse to participate in this shit, if such free time is possible. Every day and every act is designed to exhaust the will of the people, to drive up the death rate and lower life expectancy.

>>7637
>Ghetto ass people don't even listen to that. Very often ghetto people don't listen to anything at all. There are a lot more weeaboos and gamers in ghetto life, lots of Yugioh shit. You're more likely to find some white country hicks listening to black gangster music than actual black people, and I've heard some tirades from black people over the years about how that shit was produced by the Jews to destroy them.

The black people who condemn gangster rap are usually the Civil Rights geeration.
Those born after 1962 are full blown gangster rap fans.

Although yes, I hear more gangster rap being blasted by white kids.
Black kids would blast urban R&B


>The music produced by ruling institutions is intentionally artificial and queer, and you can see this change compared to music of the past, which was just some people recording songs they would sing live. There is a marked transformation of music that came in force during the 1980s, and that was all oligarchy. Much of what is "popular" is aristocratic in its value - their idea of what we are "supposed" to be. So, I hate punk with a passion, and gangster rap is slop.


People said the same shit about rick n roll back in the 1950s, that it was commercial slop made to dumb down the youth.

Also, the 1980s was the mark of the digital age.

What are your thpughts on the axiom "Man is above the animals"?

I personally dont think so.
Theres alot of intelligent abilities that animals share with humans, like mapping, counting, building homes, even cooking food.

Man is in constant denial of their biological nature.
They always assume that biological drives are some peculiar bug raher than a feature.
Yet, most of our laws are governed by biological incentives.

>>7644
>"Man is above the animals"?
True in a literal sense as in people went to space and that's the highest elevation any creature from earth has been. I guess some of the bacteria on the ISS are feeling pretty snooty now.

If you look for something that sets people apart from animals in a practicle sense, it's that people can be universal labor, able to do any task. While animals can only be narrow ability labor, like an oxen that can only pull a cart or a plow.

Maybe once we can fully controle our environment, like people building self sustaining space habitats in a major way that collect gobs of energy from orbiting a star or doing fusion reactors, that's perhaps the threshold for saying that we're no longer like animals, that are at the mercy of their environment.

>Yet, most of our laws are governed by biological incentives.
Doubt!
The majority of laws are incomprehensible technocratic stuff that originates from corporate bureaucracies. Which is hardly driven by biological anything.

>>7645
Is this Eugene or someone else?

But anyway:
>If you look for something that sets people apart from animals in a practicle sense, it's that people can be universal labor, able to do any task. While animals can only be narrow ability labor, like an oxen that can only pull a cart or a plow.

That is kinda fair. But you're forgetting about primates.

>Doubt!
The majority of laws are incomprehensible technocratic stuff that originates from corporate bureaucracies. Which is hardly driven by biological anything.


All that corporate plutocratic nonsense which governs the civil world is all based on biological incentive.

>>7646
>That is kinda fair. But you're forgetting about primates.
You are channeling Planet of the Apes. But in reality there's no monkies doing universal labor type stuff. These have been around as long as we have, you'd think that if it was possible to get monkies to do labor, somebody would have figured it out already.

>All that corporate plutocratic nonsense which governs the civil world is all based on biological incentive.
In some legal systems, corporations are considered people, but corporations are abstract legal constructs that exist only as documents on paper and computer memory, they have no bones and no flesh. So that's perhaps the most salient refutation of a link to biology.

Also most people can't understand what these laws say, if you had ever tried to read up on it, you'd know how impenetrable this stuff is. If the rules aren't in the heads of people, how can any of it be linked to biology ?

>>7644
"above the animals" in a social hierarchy? Animals are not political subjects or members of society in the proper sense. You'd have to construct a hierarchy that is relevant to judgement to speak of humans being above animals, and then qualify that by the meaning of this hierarchy. If it's a hierarchy of intelligence and technology, then clearly humans have language and technology that animals do not match. But, that's a different claim from a belief that animals "have no mind, no soul, and are biological automata". Animals clearly possess thought of some sort to navigate the world, behave in ways which suggest they value living for something more than mere survival. Animals were not created for us to hunt them, and those subscribing to that belief are really saying that humans of other tribes are fair game for any predation. That was the religion of Babylon.

If you are invoking some natural order where nature gave humanity a gold star and promises, that's Satanic through and through, and has no basis in science or any worthwhile treatise on what we are doing here. You can assert it by violence or insinuation, but there's no "reason" for humans to be anything. Considering that the partisans of this focus all of their ire on other humans, it says enough about what they really mean by it. A Satanic race cannot change.

If you're suggesting animals have technology of fire and social behaviors comparable to ours, history and science confirm that is negative. They would possess tool use and the very existence of a body is technology of a sort. But, humans with symbolic language and communication of it produce things that no animal will, and human tool use enhanced that ability. That is one thing that the theories of biopolitics can't stand - that human beings modify themselves through technology and have done so over generations, but they do not do so as they please, nor in any inexorable process that can be commanded or that humanity conforms to in future generations. Such arguments fall apart to say that human evolution can be directed in the way eugenics insists. The conditions of eugenics are total society under unlimited torture and nothing else - and this is where humanity will be locked forever, due to what happened in our time. The last chance for that to change winked away, to thunderous applause. Eugenics has won. Satanic race. We are left then to salvage something out of the nightmare, if that is possible.

Since I write extensively about appeal to nature, I think you should just read my book to have the proper perspective. This is something I write about considerably in this and Book 2, and intend to continue writing about in Book 4 - the distinction of humans from animals. This distinction is not essential in the way bad philosophy like Kraut philosophy believes, but it is a very big distinction. I set out to define economics and politics not as distinctly human behavior, but as concepts to define how we would speak of economics and politics anywhere.

>>7646
He is not me but he's mostly in line with my thinking. I would differ in one respect - I don't believe that there is a category of "universal labor" in that sense, other than the concept of labor itself. Human labor-power (or more accurately, human labor-potential) is a particular type of machine rather than "essentially different" in a way we would have to regard. We can value potential human labor-power without realizing or valorizing it, and borrow against it - for example, we say some young man has a promising career ahead of him, or he is consigned to the dustbin of history. This is the primary value humans seek, rather than the product itself which is largely incidental to how humans conduct politics.

A key distinction I make for humans is that human labor is generally alienable - that is, humans have a sense that they could do any number of things and that this labor can be managed. The theory of labor from free trade arises from division of labor rather than labor itself being worth anything, and part of division of labor is that labors are alienable from one another. For an animal, any such calculation isn't done in the abstract. The animal thinks - perhaps I am inserting a process that doesn't belong there, but I think this is a reasonable - the animal thinks "I need food, so I will get food", "I want security so I will protect my turf and my offspring". There isn't a managerial class among animals in the sense that exists in humans, where labor is alienable and treated as fungible in the abstract. In some animal kingdoms, animals are specialized for roles they fulfill and establish this as part of their survival strategy, like a colony of ants. It doesn't occur to the ants that it could or should be different, since that requires a large number of developments.
My argument is that humans have no monopoly on this, as a race or as a thought-form or idea. Humans can feud among each other about who is really human, or what human means going forward. The arguments for universalism among humans are not premised on a necessary division of labor. Very often it's the exact opposite - that no matter what humans do or are, they all live on the same Earth, under the same sun, and their differences don't necessitate any political distinction or moral valuation "just because". If there are social distinctions, there is a reason why - not necessarily a good reason, but someone always justifies in some way this distinction, or they carry out the distinction in silence and struggle against groups they do not include in their polity. The idea that we exist to carry out "struggle of essences" is Germanic and incredibly stupid, designed to cannibalize a society. If you believe your group is superior, the question isn't posed to nature. Nature doesn't care at all about the struggle humans wage. The claims of nature-worship and "natural law" are very different, which is something I write about in the book.

>>7647
So many take for granted all of the social developments of human beings, which were not trivial or freely reproduced. Something as simple as spoken language, which would be the most obvious way to begin alienating labor - tell one of the apes to do this, another to do that, by some coordinated plan - would not be made fully formed or even part-formed, let alone standardized in a way that allowed the concept that you could issue imperatives and expect band members to obey. Very likely, speaking begins in much cruder form, then develops in secret as part of a game humans played with each other. There is a whole lot that humans do that has nothing to do with alienating labor, and many things we do cannot be fully alienated. It takes a man and a woman to make a baby and raise it, and men are going to think "hey, this little squirt came from my seed, and maybe I should account for what I created, you know/"

>>7648
>There is a whole lot that humans do that has nothing to do with alienating labor, and many things we do cannot be fully alienated. It takes a man and a woman to make a baby and raise it, and men are going to think "hey, this little squirt came from my seed, and maybe I should account for what I created, you know/"

I wish more people remembered that procreation isnt exclusively a female ability.


People like to say "women are the creators of life, therefore goddesses".

Even going so far as to say "men are expendable, they shouldnt be allowed to exist."

But, eggs cannot self-fertilise.
It requires a sperm to do it.

Speaking of which, maybe its just me, but have you noticed that whenever society refers to "women", they usually mean "young adult females"?

Older women are seen as defective females.
We see this in fiction where most villianesses tend to be middle aged women.
Or if there are any older female protagonsists, they usually portray them as neurotic awkward smothering moms or sailor mouth grandmas.

Men often side with ypunger women if theres an altercation between a ypung woman and an older one.

But, thats assuming the female youth in question is light-skinned, slim, curvy, and cutesy.
If theyre not, theyre treated as punks.

>>7652
So much of that thinking is pure eugenic creed, rather than anything women really want or any sense of "sexual identity politics" which is wholly unsustainable. For most of history, men and women really did inhabit different societies, only sometimes intersecting, with a hidden world of the orgies and games that are part of the club where "real humanity" exists. Ugly reality is that a large part of the male population has always been out of the club entirely, matched by a smaller part of the female population who are effectively forbidden from the reproductive game. Children of whores do not have great lives and that is a chilling effect to say the least.

It's very telling that women are told to emphasize their "market value" or a eugenic sense of civic worth with their whole person, and this dominates all messaging to women and about women. So insidious is the messaging that when we think of women as anything but this, we're "objectifying them", while this treatment that is mandated and glorified and emphasized is somehow not objectifying. Then a guy figures out that women are, you know, objects of affection who won't actually love them back, and decides to make the most of it, and this isn't good enough either. It's all designed to emphasize who's in the orgy club and who isn't, and everyone who condones it is a complete piece of shit.

It's even more funny because the default male attraction is to any fertile female who isn't going to ruin their life, and preferably he wouldn't ruin her life. I would think that was simple enough. It used to be you could find women who thought roughly the same, in that they wanted to do the thing to make baby and go on with the rest of their life, and didn't indulge in this complete control of reproductive life or make it into such a rigamarole. Everyone saw that for what it was. But, eugenics won. Such things are the results of letting that go on for as long as it did. We're seeing now that it created such a toxic nightmare society that many of us really are better off dead than joining that, and that's exactly what a few have already come to, whether they off themselves or simply neglect themselves and stop caring. Either way, eugenics gets what they want - to make life so intolerable that no one can bear the thought of damning anyone to live like this. I get sick of listening to people make excuses for eugenics like I'm the crazy person for saying what they did for 100 years, with nothing to show for it but torture and death, now violently imposed on the world.

The central theory of eugenics and Darwinism is that reproduction "just happens" by some blind impulse, and this is not supported by anything. Reproduction only ever happens under circumstances which are uncommon and require some deliberation of life. It's not like some man "accidentally" finds himself inside a woman, or the woman passively agreed to that and has no control over her body. The total lack of agency and celebrating it from the eugenists is a celebration of their filth religion, imposed on us to insist we're the people who should die - all intended for a Satanic race.

>>7653
Do you agree that romance and sex are oversold as entitlements of adulthood?
That most people fail in romatic love because theyve been taught wrong about love being some fatalistic innocent effect that just happens rather than being based on sociobiological endowments?

Society tells young people tgat "looks dont matter" in the game of love.
They tell young people to "be yourself".

Yet, young people whom are plain in looks amd wit are looked down upon.

Theyre left to rot lonely and awkward.
They find love in middle age when theyre already burned out and stuck in a dead end job to some damaged goods

>>7653
>It's very telling that women are told to emphasize their "market value" or a eugenic sense of civic worth with their whole person, and this dominates all messaging to women and about women. So insidious is the messaging that when we think of women as anything but this, we're "objectifying them", while this treatment that is mandated and glorified and emphasized is somehow not objectifying. Then a guy figures out that women are, you know, objects of affection who won't actually love them back, and decides to make the most of it, and this isn't good enough either. It's all designed to emphasize who's in the orgy club and who isn't, and everyone who condones it is a complete piece of shit.

Blame chivalry.

Also, its not really the fault of women they ended up like this.

Theyre just as hurt and confused.

>>7654
Most of the world doesn't go in for "romance". Talk to married guys and they are miserable and regret it. They will try to say it's for the kids and hold on to that, if they can, except now eugenics is taking your kids and punishing parents for any kindness or decency that once existed. They're not going to stop until all of humanity is as Satanic as them.

>They tell young people to "be yourself".

>Yet, young people whom are plain in looks amd wit are looked down upon.

That cult of selfishness stuff is literally the Nazi ideology. It's alarming how this was asserted and we weren't allowed to say no or say what it was - how standards of comparison were destroyed, making the Nazis appear fantastical. Now there are a few shmaltzy ads coming out telling us how Nazis were actually good, that Hitler made a paradise on Earth. It's disgusting. If you opposed it, you were accused of "promoting degeneracy".
This is what I mean by the eugenic creed. It's not a rehash of the Nazis carried out mindlessly. That's what eugenics always creates, wherever it inhabits institutions. It went on for too long.

Really though, people don't need to be much to be acceptable. At the end of the day, any penis will do. The one thing that would make this tolerable - any sort of genuine affection and kindness - is haram under the eugenic creed. Anything that would allow a family to form has become unseemly and "creepy". The only "exceptional" traits that are valued are the traits of perverts who insinuate what others are allowed to be. Eugenics only had to select for such people and impose their ultraviolent, Satanic religion on the world, and wait us out. We were told to "stand and die" as they did this.

Love is a very simple thing. In another world, I could have shown it to human beings, but it is not to be. Not in this life. I can only show that indirectly through things and whatever world can exist outside of society - or rather, outside of this beast which is now called "society". The sick thing is that there are all sorts of hiding places where we did retain anything to love, and all of them are aggressively destroyed by the same insinuation and faggotry.

>>7655
I know what you mean, and no woman is going to resist the cult and pressure placed on her as an individual. Those who do are pulled aside and told the reality. Heard from so many women that they were pulled aside and told that the only reason they were placed in the professional world is to be sex kittens and drive out undesirables. That was your "womens' liberation" - pure eugenics.

>>7656
>That cult of selfishness stuff is literally the Nazi ideology. It's alarming how this was asserted and we weren't allowed to say no or say what it was - how standards of comparison were destroyed, making the Nazis appear fantastical. Now there are a few shmaltzy ads coming out telling us how Nazis were actually good, that Hitler made a paradise on Earth. It's disgusting. If you opposed it, you were accused of "promoting degeneracy".
This is what I mean by the eugenic creed. It's not a rehash of the Nazis carried out mindlessly. That's what eugenics always creates, wherever it inhabits institutions. It went on for too long.


Ive noticed this as well.
Even before my political phase, I notice tgat Nazis were always glamorosed.
I heard people s at ing Hitler was a misunderstood genius, that Jewish elites were making him look bad because he opposed the international bankers.
Hell, nowadays, "nazi" as an insult is reclaimed as comical or endearing.
Meanwhile, "commie" is considered evil.
People view communism with worse fear and loathing than Nazism.
Anything that interferes with personal convenience is wrongfully called communism.

>>7656
>Most of the world doesn't go in for "romance". Talk to married guys and they are miserable and regret it. They will try to say it's for the kids and hold on to that, if they can, except now eugenics is taking your kids and punishing parents for any kindness or decency that once existed. They're not going to stop until all of humanity is as Satanic as them.

Again, its fucked up that society overpromotes romantic love and family planning as the only route of adulthood.

Because of it,too many adults throw away their potential for a participation trophy.
Most child-rearing adults, especially nowadays, often are terrible life coaches.

Society reduces children to being bipedal pets that are only barely tolerated.

Meanwhile, single childless adults are looked down upon as leeches.
They ruin many bachelors who couldve made a legacy doing scientific research or trades or culinary/agrarian arts.

Posted a new article:
https://eugeneseffortposts.royalwebhosting.net/0007.html

I have the first section of a supplemental book written in rough draft, and want to post it as is, as a sort of "introduction" intended for Book 4.

>>7656
>Love is a very simple thing

Simple, but not easy.

Your writing is not merely overly verbose, it actively resists identification, association and categorization of the contained ideas. The content itself doesn't even constitute a consistent logical framework, rather what you describe as just-so stories. I fear prolonged reading will actively erode any critical perspective and the writings themselves, the topics of which have been elaborated elsewhere far more satisfactorily, come from a primal need to project your own consciousness onto the Internet, leaving nothing but a sprawling piss stain of a system.

>>7678
Your complaint has been filed and ignored. Nonetheless, I should answer the general charge of being "overly verbose".

This is very obviously an "attack any thought inimical to Ingsoc" routine, and we've all heard it before. If I were to describe the content I'm writing about in academic detail, it would be far too long a book, since the topic is basically everything that exists and the entire history and concept of the political, and history itself. The entire point is that even a tiny explanation of the world that is satisfactory for us would be inadmissible under the ruling ideas.

One of the first arguments made is that the world is not, and never has been, "fundamentally rational". If we wanted to make society more rational, we would not have tolerated any insinuation of "human nature" or "capitalist realism" or any such asinine argument. I say from the outset, if all of the questions contained within were simple problems of allocation, then the solution is trivial in any era. Since many of us know the nature of the problem - that certain people wish us dead and have never relented on that for a moment - the answer is very trivial, and I give it very early in Book 2. That is, if we planned human society rationally, given commonly available knowledge of human history, the only satisfactory answer is to terminate the social project altogether, maintaining it at an appropriate minimum. It's not difficult to see that, given human history, the drawing down of humanity's numbers for its own sake - not for any "ecological" excuse fags make - would be the best course of action. This would be accomplished by one simple truth - that no one would want to live in a world where the "human spirit" of ritual sacrifice is the dominant force. If I wanted to write that book about what the world was "supposed to be", I would write a shorter and simpler book, but many such efforts were made.

That's not the point of the book. The point is how to understand why these Satanic fags LIKE making the world into this, without reducing the argument to simple and unknowable malice. The malice is very knowable, and what I write is intended to first answer the question why humanity turned out this way - which is what I write in the introduction to Book 2, right from the start - by reconstructing its origin and development. To do this, I require a novel historical approach. But, before I can really make clear the necessity of such an approach, the political and economic rationales that underpinned the modern civic project - the last thing which suggested there would be anything else, only because it had to for a time - have to be explained from their origin, rather than being "just so" stories, like the fag I'm responding to insinuates. This is what they always do by the way - hide like sniveling cowards behind institutions backed by a vast preponderance of violence. This is the lowest form of the technocratic mindset, the sort of people who are truly natural slaves and should be treated as such.

As for the charge that other people wrote this better than me, I don't think anyone has to my knowledge approached history in the manner I have, and would find such a task impossible if they want to remain respectable. That's why it fell on little old me to write this, because one of us fools has to say what this was for us. Such passion is inadmissible under the eugenic creed, which claims that all thought, all deeds, and all emotions are for eugenics and no other. A Satanic race cannot change.

According to fags like this, anything that is not a violent and enthusiastic recapitulation of self-abasement is "crazy", and these fags are trained to terminate any thought that feels bad. Truly, a fag race. But, those people are not worth responding to. The simple truth is that most people have lives which prevent them from writing what I write, or acting as if it were 100% true. They have been, much as I was for different reasons, forced to lie to themselves, and that is much harder than a pedagogue insists it must be, to get the brats to utter lies and believe they are true. No one can actually "doublethink" in the way that stupid book insists is normal in a "totalitarian" society. Much of what I'm writing is saying that we always have lived in such a world, and Orwell's "scary predictions" come out as banal truths if we stop lying about what was done to us, and what was done to the world. I cannot even begin to describe every violation of reality and sense that was created by the eugenic creed and its filth enablers. So, when making this effort to assemble a useful guide FOR US - so this is not for opportunists looking for a system to indulge in like any other consumer good - there are efforts necessary to obfuscate what I'm doing at least a little bit.

I expect readers to retain some sense of what things are, and have a mind and life of their own. If you're incredulously believing the last thing the news man told you, you are not going to survive the world to come. My life is already over, thanks to fags like this one. I make a parting shot like this, rather than going full retard and shooting something in "blessed terror". Terrorism is a stupid strategy, mostly because it was the strategy the eugenic creed used to install itself - that's what the event to instigate the first world war was, arranged terrorism from agentur to make the excuse to kill poor people.

I'm actually flabbergasted at how unappealing and devoid of any meaningful content scholarly writing has been. A whole milieu of shitty writing has been created specifically to convince the masses that shit tastes great, and the people are fed up with it. They don't need to hear it from me, or give a single shit what I write. I write for a niche audience and a very particular cause. My expectation is that anything I write about would be reproduced elsewhere by better people. The sad situation of this world is that it hasn't been produced already, or has been covered in so much ideology and this asinine manner of communication from hectoring fags that nothing useful can come out of it. When you see that everything humans aspire to has been organized around human sacrifice - that human betterment and happiness has meant nothing more than "all life dies screaming forever" - then you see how impossible the task is. You're asking to make an essentially Satanic race into something that can do good, and that was never going to happen. It can't even survive - not forever. But, it's going to be a long time before the world is truly rid of humanity. The best you can do, and that is already in motion, is reduce their numbers and their behavior. Eugenics is not a good way to do that, despite its claims; nor is death and torture "the point". We would prefer humans stop doing this, but that's asking for water to cease being wet. Humans can't stop themselves, and if they're given a model of a world where we don't have to do this, about 25% of them will screech like the Satanic fag retards they are, because that's all they ever had to do. A Satanic race cannot change. But, the majority of humans see that the society of mankind is wholly undesirable, and there is no escape. Not now, not ever. The taint is ingrained in every human being, repeated through its rituals of sacrifice large and small. The most enlightened thing humans could do is reduce their numbers to no more than a few millions, who have the sole task of ensuring the human spirit remains dead forever, since nothing else in the world can do that. I do not mince words - my writing is a fundamentally anti-human writing. But, none of this disdain should be read as a policy proposal, or as something referring to a world that is imminent. The world that is imminent is the world eugenics created. The terrible thing about eugenics is not that so many will die - and I do not diminish the terror eugenics has brought to the world to make us suffer and make real "all life dies screaming forever". The true horror is that those selected to live how vowed, once they "purify the race" or have made sufficient progress towards that, to intensify the torture to its maximal stage. Life will be bred in factories, tortured from birth, all for the glory of humanity's gods. There is no escape at all from such a world, not even the one we crudely fashioned out of necessity to tolerate living around these fucking Satanics. I do not hold out hope for some future world where any of us are redeemed. The only redemption we've ever known is in the afterlife we are told to ignore, we are told doesn't exist. There is indeed an afterlife of sorts, but it is not for humans, and most humans would be aghast and what they would have to do to reach one - other than the living Hell eugenics made this society into, as best as it could. I think it's not too hard for someone to think for themselves to see where technology would lead, given humanity's stated aims and its ruling vanguard. There is nothing in the world or history that would suggest that they intend to do anything other than what they have done, and what their visions for the future have always entailed.

I do believe eugenics will falter - not because of any justice or goodness, but because it is inefficient and stupid and fucktarded, reliant on contradictory and purely irrational claims and the thrill of imposing their wrongness on the rest of the world. That's what I build up to - that all of this torture and death is really silly, when the eugenists know they're just going to be tossed aside and become mulch like the rest of us. Only a tiny elite are poised to inherit the world to come, and they may call themselves "the meek" in their own delusions, but these people are more Satanic and vicious than the eugenists, and not hampered by the idiocy of their filthy race.

>>7675
No, it's actually very easy. You either love something or you don't. I just don't attach the same value to "love" or believe it is scarce. Love is annoying and dumb. But, if we seek love, that's not a hard thing to find. It just so happens that eugenism is so prevalent in this cursed time that all concepts of "love" are rebranded and shittified, to make the world as devoid of anything worth living for as they can. Desperate people do desperate things when they are told they are unlovable and that there will never be anything for them in this world. They aren't desperate for survival. Humans can easily live without any love, even thrive without it. I can't say I have much love, and certainly not for other humans. I've never loved another human in my entire life, and I wouldn't pretend I do. I learned that such things are forbidden for me, whenever I even so much as wanted friendship of the loosest sort with someone. So, I turned to things, at first for distraction, but then I asked myself what I truly want out of this, and the simple truth is that the world is basically good. Always has been. It's humans and humans alone who are the primary evil in any of our lives.

That said, I only can say I HATE a small number of people, and they have to basically state their devout commitment to turning this world into a living Hell for me to hate their entire being. For most of humanity, if they ceased acting in this way or ceased to encourage the rot, I'd have nothing to really rail against regarding them. Most of humanity did nothing whatsoever to warrant their sad fate, but they can't say they do much "good". So, I think I'm not alone in this, but most people are neutral. I used to think it was enough to work towards a slightly more livable world, but that's been a source of the problem. Everything we do, even if we believe it is innocuous or an effort to fight against the rot, winds up feeding the human project and its desires. If we build a cleaner city, it just emboldens those who clamor for more ritual sacrifice. There was no "excuse" the Satanists ever needed to do this. It was always life's prime want for them.

I should hate a significant portion of humanity for their enthusiastic support of this torture, but I simply can't be bothered. I've learned over the years that any emotional investment in human beings is a waste. They're not going to be any different in the ways I would require. Even the smallest things we would expect for humans to live long enough or do anything other than feed the trough of sacrifice are too much for them. It's never too much to enable more Satanics to breed us out, somehow.

But, I believe, there are quite a few humans who think similarly, and realized that they can only do good indirectly. Even these indirect means are suspect. Someone might want to make a charming video game to recapture their childhood experiences, but they're feeding a beast that promotes the type of society where everyone is afraid of everyone else. There is no denying what video games have entailed, that they began as a project of social engineering and were designed to hone particular behaviors in new generations. If anyone thinks video games are an art form, they really don't understand what those things are doing to them, largely because they were stripped from any context that the world could be anything other than what we are forced to claim it is.

So for me, I set my aims for goodness very low - abysmally low. The funny thing is that there are so many people I find who are aware of the need for something different, and have haphazardly assembled it - no thanks to the ruling ideas or the pedagogy they received. Any time the conditions of humanity would grow in a way contrary to ritual sacrifice, or would permanently impede eugenics, "certain people" come in to break that up, always rewarded lavishly for their compliance and their opulence made visible for all to set the example of what the human spirit really was.

I suppose the point is, just like the truth is in the world rather than any "grand theory" like the aforementioned fag does, the world itself is worth living for. It didn't do this to us. If anything, the world has been trying to fix humanity's fuckups out of some blind generosity it must exhibit for all creation. That winds up contributing to the problem in the short term. In the long term, humanity will, in its final act of delusion, truly overcome the world and make a world apart for its purest proclivity. It is with this that humanity as we know it will face its terminal crisis and decline, leaving behind nothing but a denuded husk. The madmen ruling now believe the are that, but they are nowhere close. Humanity has a lot more fight in them, a lot more evil they can accomplish and invent by the nature of their race. I expect the current transformation - away from the conditions of "primitive man" and to the final outcome of its civic project - will make clear how stupid it has been to live under the eugenic creed. I wonder where all of these bright intellectuals are when they see the rot and death eugenics created, other than congratulating themselves on a job well done. They know what side of the war they're on.

Mind, "worth living for" is not an immutable or eternal demand or a "prime want". If I really prefer not to do this, I would of course kill myself and be rid of this world. Then you good people can ask what you want to do. I wouldn't have anything to do with that. But, I see no reason why I should die for the sake of fucking eugenics, and it's really pointless that so much of us are going to suffer, toil, and die for this retarded fruity cult. If I can live to strike a blow against it, that would be more desire for me to live. But, as for what I truly live for, it really is just the world. My life isn't nearly as bad as I could be. I've seen the alternatives, and also know by now that it will never be much better. The bastards have a way of kicking me down if I have too much freedom and happiness and am seen as too virtuous or well-off. The only thing they ever think about is how to torture people for made-up crimes. If we wanted the world where humans had nice things and did good, that is actually a trivial problem to solve. There's no "solving" a Satanic race that refuses to change. But, I would call on everyone to abandon "the race", now and forever, as a hopeless cause. That has consequences, but we already face them.

>>7684
>I don't think anyone has to my knowledge approached history in the manner I have
This is a tautology. No shit you're the only adherent of your own personal mythology. There is however one guy writing about the historical role of eugenics as a social control mechanism. His books are set in the psychological context of psychopathy instead of satanism. He also includes detailed accounts of historical and present structures in the US, based on publicly available information. Things holding the book back are his belief in American conservative liberal mythology and resulting ignorance of political economy in favor of conspiracy.

>>7692
All of those are filed under "Eugenics is bad because it's mean, also, we don't REALLY oppose it, and it's actually very efficient". You fags, and you are fags, are insufferable.

I'm not the only person truly opposed to eugenics, and certainly not the most scholarly source on it.

Nothing about eugenics is "invisible". It is prominent in every institution, rammed down your throat from cradle to grave. Every selection made for overt social promotion is regulated bu eugenics and its interest alone, because eugenics is rooted in a belief in the supreme authority of violence and treats the intellectual exercise as a violent and hostile game. It attempts, in its own logic, to "perfect the race". I have yet to see anyone really approach eugenics as if it were the central ruling idea, around which economic and political thought would revolve. The only sources I find which are in the same vein come from political elitists who consider the Satanic aura of eugenics and elitism to be a good thing, and they hate the people and democracy intensely. It's a reason I posted Mosca's book.

"Psychopath" is a useless and loaded term. When the ruling institutions exhibit behavior that is clearly "psychopathic" for individuals but adaptive for institutions and office-holders, this is made praiseworthy. Every time "psychopath" is uttered, we're an inch closer to "duckspeak" and Orwellian terminology - and this was the intent, to insist that language could be modified in this way to assert reality.

"Psychopaths" are not guilty of a pathology. They're assholes, and most of their behavior has been condoned by a society ruled by an essentially Satanic cosmology and world view.

You would not be able to speak of eugenics without placing it at the center of modern human history - or rather, its source thread and its fellow travelers in past eras, since eugenics is "always imminent", even during this time where it sits at the apex of institutional authority and has terrorized the world, enjoys absolute impunity and glorifies the thrill of torture in all acts available to all humans. A Satanic race cannot change. The idea that this is "just another policy proposal" is exactly how eugenists prepare an audience to be rammed in the ass by a thousand vermin cocks.

Nearly every "psychopath" has to be in a position where they are capable of institutional authority, or being enabled by institutional authority, to act as they do. If "psychopathic behavior" were ever contrary to the aims of the eugenic creed - say someone turned their violence against eugenists - it is unmentionable. Extreme violence to exterminate the eugenists is the only way this changes, and the eugenists know the value of this monopoly.

If someone is an "unsanctioned psychopath", he (and it is almost always men who are judged for this purpose) will not survive in this world. Eugenics does not abide anyone getting ideas that it will be different. Therefore, the monopoly on torture and indulgence in the thrill of torture must be meritorious when they do it, when it commanded by some Germanic torture-slave-soldier, and shameful when done against the rulers. Very often, those who are "shamed" are not psychopaths in any sense, and are blamed for things that are clearly the actions of other people. The thrill of torture MUST be maximized for the conditions of eugenics to be established. You can see how psychopaths low and high are coddled when it is "acceptable" or "environmental", and how this is only ever invoked to defend the monopoly on violence claimed by eugenics and eugenics alone. It is not claimed by the state. The state frankly doesn't give a shit whether someone is a psychopath, nor cares much at all about what the subjects think about society, so long as they obey. Eugenics forcibly claimed this power from judgement that was in the past held by religious authorities, by traditional custom, and by bodies of men who saw themselves as perfectly capable of judging for themselves, collectively and individually, what was good and what was evil. The very idea of a "psychopath" is Germanic drivel.

>>7693
>"Psychopath" is a useless and loaded term. When the ruling institutions exhibit behavior that is clearly "psychopathic" for individuals but adaptive for institutions and office-holders, this is made praiseworthy. Every time "psychopath" is uttered, we're an inch closer to "duckspeak" and Orwellian terminology - and this was the intent, to insist that language could be modified in this way to assert reality.

>"Psychopaths" are not guilty of a pathology. They're assholes, and most of their behavior has been condoned by a society ruled by an essentially Satanic cosmology and world view.
There's over two decades old research that suggests politicians, lawyers, police etc have higher proportions of psychopaths.

That makes for a pretty satanic society.

>>7695
Yes, because politicians and lawyers are beneath the eugenists on the ladder. According to the eugenist version of society, political office exists entirely as a reward for good heritage, and actual political "work" is passed to subordinates, who are thrown under a bus whenever the eugenists, safe from all attack, need to play to that old human favorite, ritual sacrifice. So, that's where that comes from. The eugenists need to shame their functionaries just as they shame the lower orders, and tell them to heap all of the same on the weakest who have always been the target of humanity's ritual sacrifice practice and the entire reason that exists. When you see that the entire society is set up to maximize that - that every productive enterprise is channeled towards that as the highest goal, and humans simply REFUSE to do anything else - serving such a society even with "good intentions" is evil unto itself. If you try to live outside of society, that must either be inadmissible or a sign of evil genes, and thus mental illness. If you try to adapt against the institutional attack on you, that is "treatment resistance". They do not want us to live under any circumstances. To choose to live in spite of the eugenic creed is deemed "psychopathy", and so the image of political leaders whose sole freedom is for the thrill of torture and no other, that sets an example. It is intentional. You can see how this behavior is rewarded when it's "acceptable" and shamed when it is not, or when the higher eugenists throw them under a bus.

Know who the classical psychopath is if you actually believe in the model? Psychologists, who began as analysts and inquisitors, are raging psychopaths. This is what selects them for the profession. Eventually it gets to be too much rot for longtimers, who got into the field because they were selected for it and realized that this was far more rot than their malicious personalities could fathom. But, they're blooded, they're in the game, so they usually spend their lives in the bowels of some bureaucracy, doing shit like disability determinations. These people love to fuck around with the claimants, who in turn fuck with them for being made to pass through redeterminations that are intentionally onerous so that the honest are punished. Things like that are reproduced in every minute act of society, as much as is possible. Any deviation from "perfection" must be correctly, and so it has been. Humans don't know anything else. A Satanic race cannot change.

Hierarchy places doctors, education administrators, and psychological inquisitors at the apex as classes, who are governed by a selective body who are promoted primarily for malice or being from the right families. Those right families are taught they must blood themselves with ever-more sacrifices, and that's where you get Satanic families like the Bushes.

>>7685
Do you agree that romantic love is extremely selfish?

>>7688
Why do you people always pathologise video games as demonic but overlook TV and radio?

>>7699
NTA but TV and radio are dying mediums?

>>7698
No, I don't think it's selfish. Eugenists always exaggerate "me me me" but most people are not like them. Most people have lives.

Most people aren't really for "romantic love", because they've seen it and said "no thanks" for all of the reasons you can see. The great narrative of the eugenists is to say that love is inherently as selfish as they are, scarce and miserly handed out like a commodity - and since they own the whores and glorify that like every aristocracy does, you can see their motives and they're not too subtle by now. But, "romantic love" has a meaning that we know well enough, and it's not this version of "sentiment to be abolished" that eugenists shriek for like retards. Desire for a union with the opposite sex is something we expect, and it is that which eugenists must co-opt and police. Any "proper and acceptable form" eugenists impose is designed to shittify all attachment a man might have with a woman, and trains the women to be nothing more than vessels for the eugenic creed and turn viciously against themselves and each other. For many reasons, women never "chase" the men, and men will almost always reject women who do, again for reasons that aren't difficult to figure out if you have any awareness of society, so this has primarily vilified men with unorthodox tendencies rather than policing the internal thoughts and desires of women. Women are trained to look presentable and assimilate eugenist orthopraxy, while men are expected to maintain a completely insane orthodoxy. The eugenist elite men are allowed to freely transgress that orthodoxy for the "greater good", and the women are taught to defend their entire legal and physical person as eugenic property of the creed against the weak. This is a crude reduction, but eugenism is dominated by such sexual pathologies, and they have insinuated every permissible definition of love.

For myself, love has nothing to do with sex, and that was not my meaning. If I loved someone I wouldn't do that to them. It's inherently an ugly business even before eugenism came in to make it intolerable. There's nothing preventing me from loving a sexual partner, but they're two completely separate threads, and the primitive ape brain that handles sexual matters has consequences rather than being "the point". That is the insinuation, no? Historically, everyone understood that. The people weren't destroyed so thoroughly and stripped of standards of comparison to tell them that there are other ways people can live. I think men who are passionate about making it work with a woman would think differently from me about decoupling the two, but they're quite aware that the impostor of "eros" eugenists proclaim has nothing to do with what they want, or what anyone would want.

>>7699
Where did I overlook them? The medium does not intrinsically have any causative power just by being. There is a game played by retards with the McLuhan statement "the medium is the message", not getting what he meant. In any event, video games are not a "medium" or a product that is fixed as is, the way a television broadcast or a book is. McLuhan was before video games, and there has long been an effort to impose "mediation" on all that exists. What video games really do is repeat rote social behaviors. The player plays the game, rather than passively watching its content. Usually with some medium, any medium, your brain operates in parallel, rather than being in a hypnotic trance where the viewer is suggestible - no matter how much research is done in social psychology to say they can do this, the only way any of that mass propaganda could work is when it is backed by an immense preponderance of force, deployed competently enough to reproduce the terror. Otherwise, as most people do, they walk away from the TV during the advertisements, or refuse to watch shows that make them hate life and reek of Israel. This is one thing which motivated so many people to pull their cable for good - why bother when the things they actually like are available for cheaper, now that producing media is incredibly cheap?

I don't say "video games are inherently evil because they engage with the viewer and engagement is bad". That's the default programming activated, and it didn't work for legacy media. It doesn't work at all for the printing press, since people tend to need time alone to read a book, detached from other activities while reading. I say this as someone who played plenty of video games - a lot of what is made is dreck, which is why we're at the sad situation where lootboxes are a thing. They wouldn't be pushed if this weren't a business model that paid off, mostly by annoying players until they agree to that first microtransaction. The good news is that there are a lot of people who can do better, and do better is exactly what they did. Also, because there weren't a lot of controls on video games and it was the wild west, video games were one of the few outlets for a creative mind, within limited boundaries that video games allow. The games had to be compelling enough that someone would want to play them, rather than feel they have to out of social obligation or to fill their otherwise empty lives.

You can read up on the history of game development, the ties of a lot of this to military intel or Japanese oligarchs. These weren't developed totally on a whim, or because they were profitable. Gamed had to be made ridiculously expensive for them to be any sort of money making venture, and that was with the business propped up by a lot of oligarchic money. Nintendo got in when the startup cost for making games was relatively low, but they were a business with quite a few hats until one of their engineers said "hey, I have this cool idea for a light gun", and that was their one thing which let them grow. Before there was instant proliferation of technical knowledge or media as we know today, someone with money can spend that money on a project to make dividends. But, Nintendo is notorious for its work culture and its efforts to cultivate a fanatical base from its fans. A lot of the "console wars" were driven by some PR ghouls at Nintendo. Who else remembers the insane schoolyard arguments?

Anyway the point is that this sort of thing never happens unnoticed, and during the 1990s American game development became even more military-focused, if that were possible. If you look at many of the names in American game development you find some interesting links. Why is that? It is for the same reason Gunpei Yokoi is presenting his idea to his rich boss who hated video games rather than believing you got rich off of ideas and hopium - you gotta get the ear of the money men and tell them how this project serves all of their interest, not just say "the kids will love it and you have to hire me - or else". That's not how it works. I don't know why there are still people who think you get rich by merit or talent. Rich people love having everyone else at their mercy and then forcing them to say there is no devil. The medium is not particularly relevant, but no communication, no activity, is a thing beneath the notice of those with an interest in controlling all that exists. No one got rich by actually believing ignorance is strength. So, Yamauchi might have hated video games, but he certainly knew how video games worked on people and what his business did, and what orders were coming down to him or through him or around him. The retard believes that a capitalist is purely an abstract creature detached from anything that his firm does or what he invests in, but no investor dumps their money in an enterprise without asking how this pays off in a material sense. No business can survive as a ponzi scheme forever, and investors sniff out obvious ponzi schemes and never stop bitching about them. They are perfectly aware their investments make money when the people without money or investments suffer. Always has been that way, regardless of how the investment is made. The reasons why aren't really economic or "materially necessary", but all of this happens in a material world, and at the very top, money is not conjured for no reason and certainly not conjured because the guy who owns the bank is a swell human being who just wants to make society happy.

>>7701
Do you agree tgat society is hebephobic when it comes to sexual autonomy?

Society wants to ban young people from sex and romance but then push them into drudgery.

Meanwhile, the (male) elders are encouraged to gallivant off and fuck anything that moves.

>>7704
If anything the institutions promote sexualism as early as possible, and mark who is "allowed" to violate the taboos to assign social status. They have turned to bragging about fucking children if they're "doing it right".

Another thing the child sex obsession does is give a pretext to shut down the internet. Want to make as many onerous security restrictions and hardwire the computers to work against the user? Create a condition where child porn means your life is destroyed, and then plant it and abrogate the law. For now, there are standards about this, and people are not stupid. Take for example "child rapist" Scott Ritter, who was sexting an allegedly teenaged girl who entrapped him. Now obviously that's not what this really is, and all of the military spook guys are "blooded" and "compromised". It's standard procedure in the secret society club to brag about their right of transgression, and Israel is a vector for this. But, a reasonable adult does not make the equivocation of that with the sort of obsessive pedophile behavior that is well known. There is no great secret about all of the terrible shit that happens to children, and the mindset of hardcore pedos, because enough pedos are busted and their stories are in the public domain. It's a truly sick disease. Everything in the porn world is controlled by the aristocracy, and the sicker the porn, the more they are in it and pushing it. Anyway, as the standards of legal comparison are stripped away - that's what the "consent" project was about, creating conditions of so much distrust and legal vagary to override any sense from the public that this is bullshit - it extends to society generally. The invasion of private life starting in the 1990s is escalated when the Heritage Foundation Nazis get their optimal "health care" project, all for eugenics. All for eugenics.

So, going back to your post (it's stupid by the way). It is never really "natural" because agency in some sense is necessary for a male and a female to couple, and no one "accidentally" fucks someone else. The insinuation machine's core is ancient, going back to temple prostitution of Babylonian Satan-worship at the least. So, the idea that there is a "normal" to go back to is missing the point. After the past 100 years, the damage is permanent, the outcome irreversible. Humanity is failed and hopeless. I would think if the insinuation machine were eliminated at the apex - if everyone rejected the premise that this is acceptable, and we were allowed to speak of what these things really were - most of humanity would refuse sexualism outright. This would come from the men. A third of the males have always lost that game at least, and usually it has been more than half. The women will almost never debase themselves by taking on any risk with men, and men learned a long time ago to reject those advances.

There is nothing "there". People have sex because making a family is the thing that people do, or there's a lot of expectation that this is what they do or should do. Contrary to the eugenic creed, it's actually quite difficult to expect "nature to take its course" with no agency, because nature does not regard sex as existentially necessary. Nature proper is entirely lifeless, for life itself is an aberration - a fluctuation that, by all accounts, should not exist. It is not absurd that the universe itself exists, but life in all of the ways we understand it violates nearly every law of nature we have ever known. That's what life does. But, that violation is never controlled or obedient to invented "natural laws", all of which were the conceit of aristocracy and its fetish cults. If you step back, you see how absurd this really is, especially as you get older. For my part, my "genes" are as good as anyone else, coming from the same stock as the assholes who did this to the world. I don't see the merit in the supposed "best and brightest", given the work they've done in the past 100 years to bring nothing but ruin to the world. I would never subject a child to this ritual sacrifice, and that's the way they want it. They only want screamers like themselves to populate the world. The last act of eugenism will be an effort to impose repopulation on their terms, with eugenic education breeding Nazi children and telling them they're the only "real humans". This will not work because all of their theories of history and biology and physics and just about everything are hilariously wrong or "not even wrong". They've been trying their best to make that happen, and it's always failed. All eugenics can do is destroy, destroy, destroy, and after what they've done to us, there is little to be done with humanity except to end the project. Whatever comes out the other end of this will be a denuded, miserable world - but eugenics will end. It will not be "defeated" in any great struggle. That shit is a bunch of malarkey. No one is going to wage revolution after all that happened. If they were going to do that, it had to happen before or immediately after 1918, or history would have had to turn out very differently from around 1750 on, or humans would have had to be very different creatures leading to a different ancient world. But, eugenics will fail when they need to repopulate with the "right people", because none of their slave-children have any reason whatsoever to comply. They only have total fear - and that is the final legacy of republicanism. The only thing they have done - and this was likely part of the "deeper project" - is make despotism look great by comparison. Their idea is that they can install inbred monarchs like the ogod old days, but that is retarded. Some courtiers think they're clever to get the masses to destroy themselves and make themselves the despots in secret, but this is retarded too and won't work. That's why I couldn't get why these people are so smug and ocnfident about what they're doing. They have to realize that they've just consigned humanity to a degraded form of despotism and did it for nothing, right? But, they really don't. They do not think. Enablers never do. I think most will be surprised at what this turns into, but I'm not, and nor are people who find history intrinsically interesting. Humans are consigned to despotism, but it won't conform to the idiotic conceits of it that were commonly accepted and made the center of ideology. They'll probably be surprised at what sort of qualities would actually be useful and effective in the world to come, which is why eugenics is working feverishly to burn the world to the ground and make their scars as damaging as possible.

>>7704
Anyway, I expect after the eugenists are used for their purpose and tossed aside, there will be "repopulation", but it will be from people who are worn out, at the end of their rope. There truly won't be anything "for" it, but only out of some dull inertia and a necessary reaction to the incessant pressing of the eugenic creed would life continue. The expectation of breeding children in vats will not only fail to wrok, but if it did work, those children and their minders would see that this doesn't work, and there wouldn't be a good rationale for whatever slave system the eugenic creed will do during its death throes. The nukes aren't "for" them. They're for the people who really decided who lives and who dies. Anyone who went along with eugenics and thought nature actually worked that way is a sniveling retard and, if I live long enough to see them get got, I will piss on their grave in spirit. Hate, my friends. Hate.

As far as doing things "the old way", first of all, the courtship rituals insinuated through mass media are never how it goes. The usual result for most males is failure. If they're truly selected to die, most give up, with some going down the incel doom train due to the eugenic creed's herding behavior. More often though, I see older men who go about their life, obviously single, and it's no longer surprising. It's expected, even. That is already becoming the expectation in a lot of places. Family life, if any, is limited and there is really nothing for it, with most men relegated to cuckoldry anyway. Without the pretenses of marriage, and without the overbearing "nothing outside the state" horseshit of fascist faggotry, the most likely outcome will be that cooperative child rearing will become normal and expected, and those social units - dominated by the women - will become the default and expected. Men will not be "family men" and it would be unseemly for a man to be so. It's hard to say just how this turns out, and by the end of the century, the ruling power's monopoly on life will be enough that no one can really escape it. But, "atomization" is never a strategy for a stable society. It is a strategy for destroying a society to replace it with this new dogshit.

What I'm seeing is that younger males are already giving up, seeing what this world has become by time they are 12. A Satanic race cannot change. It is hopeless to try. Better to be alone, and let some fool play that game, since that's what humans really are.

I imagine the sex itself will be seen as a sordid, ugly affair by all, best not spoken of. It will continue again out of the inertia of the ritual, but as the final stage of human political society is established, that will be it. The last inertia will go through the motions, and then humanity will see that there really was no way out, even if things went different. History will go on, but a great fading of life will become expected, and there will be nothing to replace it - and this will probably be seen by everyone as the right thing in the end. There is, so far as I can see, nothing in humanity or the Earth that would create any different condition. The last "effort" to repopulate - although it won't be an "effort" or socially engineered outcome but rather the removal of eugenist atrocities allowing a brief period of rebirth - will grow in a world where the verdict of humanity reads "guilty, on all counts, with nothing whatsoever to redeem it", and this will be taught. It already has made the rounds, and that has been the precedent set by the distant past. Few would want to have children, and no one would really see a reason for this to change. The expectations of people will become so abysmally low, with their chief aim being to leave this sorry experiment and find a different world. A world where we didn't do this. We've already compared enough notes to see that this is what has to happen, and that is the real redemption for us - to turn away from the human enterprise once and for all, and all false promises of "transhumanism" which are worse versions of the same folly. The last condition - the requirement of labor - will not be a problem, because frankly there isn't much that really "has" to be done. Most of the work now is purely to make other humans suffer, or "make work" to exhaust the resolve of people who would have free time and reason to shirk this "responsibility" that was insinuated. Of the actually useful labor that is done, it is managed in the most ruinous fashion imaginable, both because it was intended to exhaust the people rather than make useful products, and because those who work for a living mock the idea of "hard work" religiously. Only the losers work much at all, and they have no real reason to produce anything useful only to see it sacrificed and used for more Masonic rot. Nobody gives a shit about this, and thus the productive work is woefully inefficient for meeting the needs and wants we would have if humanity were not an insane, Satanic race. Despite this obviously woeful inefficiency, human productivity has never been higher, and we produce far in excess of anything humans need or want, so far as any actual work is done. Eugenics saw to it that specifically those conditions that would allow life inimical to eugenics would be unattainable and always made scarce, with the full knowledge of everyone that this situation was always contrived. The right of unlimited transgression and opulence of those "in the know" has always been flaunted, to remind us the rules are different for them. Before eugenics was locked in, there was for a brief period a realization of just how woefully inefficient human organization had been. It's been written out of history, but past humanity was extremely lazy by our standards. The long work hours of proletarians were never particularly productive, and the entire purpose of imposing that was to exhaust the population as rapidly as possible. There was never a reason to impose 14 hour work days, and the products were so inefficiently distributed that most of them were wasted or never sold, before they would be pilfered since there wasn't enough guard labor and the threat of hanging for stealing wasn't a great deterrent. The reduction of the work week was wholly arbitrary, because productivity or profitability was never really the purpose of any operation. The only reason the 40 hour work week was imposed was to make labor opportunity itself scarce, to prepare the workers to ritually sacrifice each other to "get ahead", and specifically to lock out the "reserve army" who were now to be attacked on all fronts, the first of many victories for the eugenic creed. So, reducing the work week from 70 to 40 hours had nearly no effect on productivity, and was a boon for profit - because the imperative at work was depopulation, not capital. I should also make clear here that proletarians, like any slave class, never knew anything of solidarity. Slaveries do not produce comraderie. It is the exact opposite. Within the working class, there were clear and stark winners and losers. It was only a sense of necessity that led enough of the workers to see that if the death culls were too successful, they would only hasten their own doom, and so support networks existed to replace the withdrawal of church charity by decree, and these had always been around. The proletarian was not a perfected "cog", all suffering equally. No such equality among slaves existed, and it has never been a feature of any slavery in history. The obvious result of free trade is yet another wave of death. It was matched by the fecundity of families at the time, because children were slave labor both for the capitalist and for reproducing the home. That was normal then, when children were expected - if not obligated - to keep up their elders. Most never did, and elders would die in squalor more often than not, or take their own life. It has been a recurring truth of human history that around 50, those who have seen enough will check out, and since their bodies are likely already going, they need only let the ravages of the environment do their thing to hasten death, before working up the will and settling their final affairs, and finding their method of choice. I'm hitting the age where people realize that it really is a bunch of bullshit, even in the best of conditions we could have ever hoped for. It doesn't matter who we are. There never really was a "point", as they say. But, I can say, and have always said, that this bullshit we were forced to live through is very much not the point, and I've made it my point to spit on that with the time I have left.

I believe - and this is already happening - a lot of men aren't looking at "players" as something to envy. They're instead asking themselves what the point of doing that would even be. They know the women will never actually want them, or really want men for much of anything at all. If you want love and nurturing, you're better off making your own best friend than the uncertainties of any other human, let alone the nightmare that is the sexual game. Most people would count themselves lucky to have any stable life to call their own, and it would be a pleasant surprise if their children grew up with any manners.

There are of course men who are pathologically addicted to womanizing, and men who are specifically trained to fear that because of the outsized weight of the ritual sacrifice in this country - or in my case, all of the shit that was insinuated about me, calling me a rapist and pushing that hard since I was 10, when my "crime" was non-existent, since I already knew not to even bother with girls and the fear was already installed by that age. I learned when I started having any such interest to kill it off, and that often is a "trigger" for womanizing behavior and obsession with sex - all intended as part of the insinuation machine.

If you don't believe me, the "sexual revolution" imposed from above has not happened as if we are too stupid to know what this Nazification is. Enough people have talked to each other by now to stop lying about this. The only people who did are fucking fags.

>>7705
Society is too morally obsesses with pedophilia, even to the point of misattributing it to teenage or vicenarian (twenty-something) sexuality.

As for society promoting sexualism to kids, idk.
Yea alot of sexual innuendo is in media but its more gatekeeping.
Elders dont want young people to have any healthy sexual autonomy.
They want young adults to be kept as naive as possible for vicarious usage.



>>7706
>>7707
>>7709
>>7708

>What I'm seeing is that younger males are already giving up, seeing what this world has become by time they are 12. A Satanic race cannot change. It is hopeless to try. Better to be alone, and let some fool play that game, since that's what humans really are.

Contrary to popular belief, innocence isnt automatic nor universal in youth, especially after age twelve.
Society wants to extend innocence past the age of twelve which infantilises people.
The excessive romanticism of youth as a hugbox of innocence is why we have adolescence erronously accepted as a natural stage.

>or in my case, all of the shit that was insinuated about me, calling me a rapist and pushing that hard since I was 10, when my "crime" was non-existent, since I already knew not to even bother with girls and the fear was already installed by that age. I learned when I started having any such interest to kill it off

As a black boy growing up in the South in the 2000s and 2010s, I felt the same way.
People s expect you to be some bravado figure and even semi-positively want that.
But I was an awkward semi-nerdy kid.
The only bastion I could safely enjoy is porn or erotic manga.

Since I was in elementary school, I always gave wide berth to young female passerby in public.
If I was in a park amd a ypung woman happens to go the same way Im going, I go the opposite way.

White guys get thrown in jail for false allegation of stalking.

>If you don't believe me, the "sexual revolution" imposed from above has not happened as if we are too stupid to know what this Nazification is. Enough people have talked to each other by now to stop lying about this. The only people who did are fucking fags.

Actually, the sexual revolution has hurt the LGBTQ folks even more.
The beneficiaries are the light skinned Bacchian prettyboys.

Most LGBTQ folks are plain looking, unworldly, and sexually/romanticially frustrated.

>I should also make clear here that proletarians, like any slave class, never knew anything of solidarity. Slaveries do not produce comraderie. It is the exact opposite. Within the working class, there were clear and stark winners and losers. It was only a sense of necessity that led enough of the workers to see that if the death culls were too successful, they would only hasten their own doom, and so support networks existed to replace the withdrawal of church charity by decree, and these had always been around. The proletarian was not a perfected "cog", all suffering equally. No such equality among slaves existed, and it has never been a feature of any slavery in history.

This is so.ething that should be made clear on the Ogre site.
They think proletarians are all innocent empathetic likeminded patrons.

Theyre not.

Everyone is out to get theirs.
Socialism will never ve accepted because capitalism has been oversold and been dyed into the fabric of the plebian psyche for so long.

But most .ogre patrons are liberals-in-denial.
All they do is whine about lack of sex and romance.
They think that trades is beneath them.
They sympathise lumpenproles.

>Humanity is failed and hopeless. I would think if the insinuation machine were eliminated at the apex - if everyone rejected the premise that this is acceptable, and we were allowed to speak of what these things really were - most of humanity would refuse sexualism outright. This would come from the men. A third of the males have always lost that game at least, and usually it has been more than half. The women will almost never debase themselves by taking on any risk with men, and men learned a long time ago to reject those advances.

Alot of the neo-puritan zeitgeist is often disgruntled males butthurt about lack of teenage romance.

I also am greived that society purs sexual reproduction as the basis of male value.
Men are only seen as worthy of life if they secure a partner to pass on their genes with.

Yet most people who succeed in doing so are bored and aimless and unappreciative of the family theyve been blessed with.

>Contrary to the eugenic creed, it's actually quite difficult to expect "nature to take its course" with no agency, because nature does not regard sex as existentially necessary. Nature proper is entirely lifeless, for life itself is an aberration - a fluctuation that, by all accounts, should not exist. It is not absurd that the universe itself exists, but life in all of the ways we understand it violates nearly every law of nature we have ever known. That's what life does. But, that violation is never controlled or obedient to invented "natural laws", all of which were the conceit of aristocracy and its fetish cults.

This is the crux of the whole thing.
Life is a subset of nature. The ultimate paradox.
But not even life general, but SENTIENT life.
The self-glorification of sapiemt life has made humans dull to the wonders of nature, it has encouraged a shallow outlook on things.

>>7710
In fact, I think that the quest to go to the stars to seek out extraterrestial intelligence is based on the assumtion that we would find intelligent life would be anthropological in physique and thought.

Religion often bases deity as anthropomorohic in body and thought.
Any sort of idea that God would not be anthropomorphic is considered blasphemous.

>>7710
"Society" in the abstract doesn't think anything. If there is a unified message insinuated with lockstep enforcement, that is PR. In any democratic society, there is always a difference of opinion on any matter, no matter how insane it seems and whatever the genuine unified support for a motion may be. Even if there were literally no one in a society that, for example, made an argument that murder is good as a deed in of itself, the potential to transgress that norm exists. That is a condition of a democratic society - that nothing prevents malevolence within the polity by any natural law or limitation. Nothing prevents benevolence or any other moral act or attitude, either. So, what you're seeing with "the obsession" is pushed in lockstep by well-paid influencers and an echo chamber of perverts and obsessives. That's what the incel forums are, and I saw that happen around 2007-2008. If you actually go out and talk to ordinary people - I know that is haram in this paranoid society - their general attitude is that sex is for other people, and anyone who is mandating what others do or are sexually is an asshole. It's always been so. The only people who ever made "incel" an insult are people I would not trust, but who were given an explicit impunity and right to transgress. I've had more people tell me that the sexual game is bullshit than tell me in lockstep what a horrible monster I am. The overwhelming majority of people I encounter don't want anything to do with any perversion or other peoples' sex lives, because they have their own lives and don't want to know about others' lives without an actual cause. The people who would insinuate this ex nihilo are given a right of transgression to break a general taboo against open sexual activity.

I get the impression (if you're not trolling me) that you're stuck in an echo chamber environment promoting "normalization" of something which is actually really bizarre. Most people don't want anything to do with children because they see the rot in this society and who promotes it, and they've always known what this really is. There are enough books written by experts regarding the question that confirm what most of us always knew. The books that "teach the controversy" all have a familiar stink if one has seen enough of this propaganda. The insinuators and instigators would be ignored, but evil does not allow itself to be ignored.

I should make clear - for most people, for most of humanity's existence, everything before proper adulthood and the obligations of family life was "not real", and not intended to be real. Most young people do little, and have no interest in orgies or "the big game", except for the threat of insinuation if one does not join the club. This has always been about power at its core. The sexual act in of itself doesn't have the outsized power you're presuming it has, for the purposes you think are operative.

>>7710
>As a black boy growing up in the South in the 2000s and 2010s, I felt the same way.
I wouldn't compare the invective against me to what they do to black kids, because the racists are strong where I live and they would tell me what they thought, thinking I was "on their team". The pure racists are much worse than the institutional mandates they are given, and brag about what they want to do when they don't have to pretend.
One of the sick things for black kids - I'm not black so I can only go off what black guys have mentioned and what I see - is that there are particular and very maladaptive archetypes, so if you're "othered" there in any way like I was, they really go apeshit on you. Usually though, black kids like me were eliminated or given far worse "dumbifying" treatment then ignored, since they could rely on the "blacks are feral superpredators" belief and white racism to suppress them. The few who would bypass that filter and enter political agitation could be co-opted, having been kept out of the know of political associations including the prevalent black associations and easily beguiled when they had to enter that type of politics, or they were killed openly. It was harder to do that to white people whose families would seek justice. I don't think there were any who were "like me", but I know black men and women who were neurologically fucked up and some of the horror stories I heard from them. Very often if they're "off" they do become like the maniacal negro supervillain high on god-knows-what drugs. Usually though, any black kid from "good breeding for their race" would become a token, and they were "line enforcers". So many black cunts and bastards do shit that would make a Southron racist blush because "race card", and the Empire loves promoting that.

The craziest thing is that the "thug life" thing is something I never saw as a thing that was actually valued. Maybe I don't know these things, but there's isn't a "black mind" in that sense that's a racial trait, and that's what the assholes running the schools always insinuated. So many wanted to play video games and watch anime, even though they were coded as "white people things only" and the Nazitards worked hard to enforce "gamer culture" while they could. There were gang fights and cliques, but when someone was glorifying the "gang life", it was obviously someone shilling - they do that to condition people to believe "this is normal", going so far as sending in "influencers" to classrooms to instigate violence if the kids are not "behaving as nature intended".

The weird thing is, most of my "self-discipline" was to kill off those emotions as soon as I detected them. No one credible has any reason to believe I would stalk or rape anyone, or that I'd even be physically capable of raping in the condition I'm in. If anyone said that about me for any remotely credible reason, it never reached my ears. Due to how "teaching the controversy" was a game they played, I found far more guys telling me to blow it off as best as I can, because they knew that what started with the "bad ones" was going to apply to everyone soon. I found more women who said it was bullshit because they went through actual sexual assault rather than "consent form rape". There was more than enough of it done in front of everyone to female employees to remind everyone who had the right of transgression, so in many cases the whole workplace / area saw it happen, knew it was wrong, and knew it wasn't ever going to change. So, I don't think most people really believe in the "rape culture" narrative that was promoted. Too many see the game that was played and know the kind of shit that the "sexual revolution" brought in, and even though it is inadmissible in the discourse, in private more people have told me that it really is as bad or worse than I believe it is than shamed me for having "incel ideas". In adulthood, no one even tries the rape allegations thing with me. They just go for "he's retarded" because they already tagged me as out. I did make it clear that if anything of that nature was ever started with me, I will have no reason not to take as many bastards down with me, and they can't really stop me. I don't bloviate about those threats to "talk tough". That was a "trigger" for going postal - put someone in such a humiliating position and destroy their life in front of their face with maniacal laughter. I know of people who took huge demotions to get away from it, some of them bumped down to menial work and knowing their life was over. Many such cases.

>Socialism will never ve accepted because capitalism has been oversold and been dyed into the fabric of the plebian psyche for so long.
I actually think socialism of a sort will gain acceptance. The greatest barrier is that for 50 years, every concept of socialism was mangled and perverted by this piss poor education regime. Before 1970, being a socialist was a respectable enough position that if a politician were accused of "socialism", they'd either say "well, then that makes me a socialist I guess", or scoffed at it. They were calling Ike Fucking Eisenhower a communist at the height of that madness, and believed Nixon was way too far to the left and liberal. Go back to the 1930s and socialism was a concept with mainstream currency. Much of what FDR did was branded as socialist reforms, because that was what they were intended to be. He brought the socialists more amenable to the liberal democratic idea into the tent, taught them that they were actually liberal capitalists but smarter and that capitalism would work to install their privilege and weaken the "useless eater" petty bourgeois. It took some working over to destroy the older socialist concept, for there was a concept of solidarity - for the middle class and technocrats, who do have a lot of natural affinity for total society.

The real problem is that socialism was never labor's movement, in any form it took. Labor is not socialist in any sense that has existed. Labor's position was that the labor associations would take back their machines for themselves. They weren't for technocratic rational planning for the benefit of society, whether society-in-the-abstract or a sense of public property and civic solidarity. Laborers were trade unionists who were paid off with promises and positions to govern their association, or they were Luddites who wanted to smash the machines and take back what they can salvage of their dignity. If there is an "us", it is not for the public interest, but the interest of whatever associations they make. Socialism could only have worked if it met the public interest, and if labor were more technocratically minded in their conduct. At the exact moment where that was a historical possibility, "socialism" became a scare word, and "miraculously" the USSR starts imploding. It was 1980 that most who knew what was what knew what the score really was - that all of the promises of socialist politicians were lies. The people who came of age during the 1970s lived through that open betrayal. It is that more than any merit of the ideas of anticommunism that turned so many against the very mention of socialism, on top of a history of betrayals, almost all of them revolving around eugenics.

Socialism as a conception of rational planning and the development of collective social units rather than individualistic ambition, that never went away as a concept in the minds of ordinary people. It was unmoored from any history, since the history of hitherto existing socialism was one of failure, betrayals, and hatchetmen who were there to make sure such a project never happened. You'd have to go back to the pre-First International days to recognize socialism as a nascent movement, and Marx+Engels were among the crew sent to wreck that. That's what the pissing matches between Marx and Bakunin in the international were, which are a sequel to Marx's early pissing matches with Proudhon. Both sides detested socialism as what was envisioned by the early socialists, and pushed out those and hemmed them into a "moderate" position beyond that which they would have taken without their meetings devolving into ideological slapfights. The Second International attempted to moderate those vices by largely excluding all of the agitating factions, and the Marxists were told to keep a lid on the agitation game if they were going to be allowed in. Many of the "Marxists" weren't lockstep dogmatics at this time, and Marx himself wasn't an incredulous zealot. He was a clever motherfucker and he was able to run that operation because he knew what the game REALLY was at all levels, and knew what politics was. Besides, the International wasn't about establishing "perfect socialism" as an idea, and that never can exist - but that was never the point of socialism. None of the early socialists were "utopians". They weren't particularly good at dealing with the material world and downright awful at politics, but most of the things the socialists wanted were very basic things - things we almost take for granted as "good" today, and which were not offensive to the mainstream when they came out. It was the freaky sex cult shit that turned most people off from socialism, in addition to the socialists having no real "game", since their mission wasn't really a political one. It wasn't something that would be voted in. Roughly speaking, the more cognizant early socialists saw their mission as managing the social transformation that modernity and industry entailed, and that's why "social issues" came to be associated with socialism. The family as we know it was going to be replaced with some other arrangement, or many other arrangements, as would living arrangements. At the time, modern living arrangements were still somewhat haphazard, since urban planning as we know it today wasn't a thing, nor was the bureaucratic state a thing. But, any of the transformations socialism entailed as a worked out, proper theory weren't possible until the late 20th century. By then, it was far too late. Eugenics was making its death march. By the late 1990s, eugenics won. Any socialism would only wind up being a eugenist socialism if it happened "suddenly".

Where socialism survives as a concept, it usually isn't called "socialism", and after being told that wanting basic things was "SOCIALISM!!!!11" people who were otherwise apathetic started to say "okay then, give us socialism". IF they had a fuller historical context, they'd probably see that any historical socialism was probably unworkable in "ideal form", and the proper development of such an aim would proceed from foundations which ensure it can't be anything good for us. If it began again, it probably wouldn't be thought of as an economic "form" at all. My expectation is that something like socialism will happen at the very end of the present cycle, almost entirely imposed by decree, but this would be done not to bring any "great revolution" or story of triumph. I believe the timetable for this means the "next thing" is ready by 2070 - if not, either humanity enters terminal eugenist insanity and a true "dark age" from which it never returns, or they blow it all up and play out the scenario where they kill everyone, with those selected to live so secured that they could kill the rest of humanity at will. If socialism happens, it would purely be a pragmatic necessity after running the world into the ground as much as they could for 100 years. Nothing they're doing now is a "turn of the tide", where socialism will be sold to the public. Mass politics as a force is utterly defeated, and will never exist in the way it was advanced in modernity.

>Alot of the neo-puritan zeitgeist is often disgruntled males butthurt about lack of teenage romance.

I don't know for sure what it's like these days, but I'm seeing 14-15 year olds already checking out. The ugly truth is, if you're not hitched by mid 20s, you're leaving the typical period for human reprodution. Usually peasants who could marry married in their early 20s, as that was about the age where such a thing was expected - old enough to have some reputation and standing established, fertility is most likely, the body isn't showing the ravages of age. In olden times, older men with early 20s women was not considered "weird", and advancing that "age rule" was in part a eugenic creed offensive, which they locked in when claiming men over 35 would have autistic children - the death diagnosis. Realistically, older men aren't going to start having a family late in life due to what society is now, even if they acquire the means to start late. That's not how it works today.

Now though, it really is over. About half of the male population will see any family life as a pure fantasy. That exists in fiction and porn, not for them. More are, like me, training themselves to kill off this part of themselves, because life will be easier when we do. That's what we were saying to each other when we could bypass the filters and say what this really has been. When I was growing up, "forced positivity" was everywhere. That was a 90s atrocity.

>Life is a subset of nature.
The problem with that is that nothing in nature suggests life "should" exist. It clearly does and it predates us by a lot, and so for our purposes it is a part of nature. On Earth, life is common, though not as ubiquitous as the ideology of "struggle for life" insists it must be, and the structures we identify with the most are living structures. Life-forms like us will see life in far more places than it actually exists. There is a lot of flesh, matter, and energy ANIMATED by life, but the flesh in of itself is not LIFE. To this day, no one can isolate "life" in pure form in any lab, or even agree on what is living and what is not. Imagine if there were debates over whether particles existed or if the entire history of chemistry were riddled with obvious pseudoscience and ideology. We have a lot of reproducible evidence that chemistry as we know it describes reality, or sufficiently describes reality. Open questions in chemistry are not politically contentious, at least until the university declared a monopoly on physical reality by declaring physics to be a purely informational construct. This never really "worked" though, because you need viable chemistry to describe every industrial process we rely upon, and considerable chemical knowledge is common knowledge and was before chemistry was a thing. Ordinary people can learn chemistry out of necessity, entirely in spite of the piss poor education they give us to make all science dogma and ideology. As more people see the necessity of learning these things apart from the institution, they are learning from the gross errors of this retarded pedagogy, and compare notes with each other. Too many things do not line with reality in dogmatic physics, which has led to many new people finally calling bullshit on the science fiction faggotries like "time travel" and magical energy Nazi/Theosophy shit.

If it's any good news, the cycle of insane Elon Musk-tier Nazi science faggotry is coming to an end. Now that eugenics is in the "kill kill kill" stage of the project, they don't need that except as a weapon to keeping shouting "DIE!" at us. Too many people know by now that they'll only be lied to by everyone, and have out of necessity worked out whatever system they're left with. I'm actually seeing some promising signs that more people are done with the myths and stories, and certainly don't uphold eugenist pharma. It has become common knowledge that Kraut pharma was designed to kill us all and drive us crazy as we die. Some of us, I hope, can die taking the truth to the grave, for what little that is worth. Even if they do not have truth, too many have no reason to continue lying, and lying to oneself about things basic sense can suss out is just self-mutilation. They can't make us do it forever, and all of that - everything we were made to live through since 1970 - was prepation for the death drive and nothing else. That's what really threw our generation for a loop. It was during the 1990s that the wheels really came off the bus, and most older people who weren't directly involved didn't quite know how damning total society was. They didn't live through the psychological assault we were put through.

Maybe some of the people born mid-late 70s got it, since it was starting up when they were still in education and this was new. That tends to be the most "aware" cohort - old enough to escape the truly awful ravages that came in after 1994 and old enough to have the benefits of wisdom generally by now, but not so old that they think technology is actually magic, unless they got a dose of Trump's brain worms.

>>7711
Anthropomorphizing God(s) in this way is a uniquely Babylonian/Satanist invention. If you go elsewhere in the world, "gods" do not have this moral authority that the Babylonian Satan held, that passed to most of the world in contact with the Near East. The Hindu conception of "gods" doesn't line up with deity-abasement and the Satanic values of Babylon. Egyptian sun-worship is similar, but deification was largely a way to uphold the pharaoh's court and favored associations of their society (and that's where the Masons allegedly come from, the favored workers building pyramids to honor their masters and brothers-in-association). But, the pharaoh was a man, and only granted part of the divine Satanic powers. Babylon was Satan-worship the whole way - think the worst stories you can find about Greek and Roman debauchery and the sliminess of the wider influence of the Middle East today, and crank them up further, and that was the basic culture. Even here, the Satan-worship cult was not "pure evil for the same of evil", for Satan would not be a particularly moral entity. That was their description of what humans, their society, and the city were. They made it big by extracting tribute from neighboring cities and so the Satan-worship religion was the origin of our typical interpretation of polytheism. That is, the gods are channeled, and demon-worship and ritual sacrifice reach their greatest height, for the political causes that were appropriate for them. The Satan-worship of the ancients - for this didn't go away with the Greeks and Romans, and passed into Christianity and its particular forms of demon-worship and Satan-worship, and figures prominently in classical era Judaism - had far more redeeming qualities than modern Western Satanism, which is pure faggotry and horseshit. Satan was wise and power and granted favor to the strong and clever, and this passed into Ba'al-worship, which still carries on in secret. Some of the "Satanic bloodline" families are into that sort of thing, if you snoop around and get into the history of occult shit. A lot of what is happening in America today emphasizes Ba'al and Moloch, and any investigation into American civic religion, its symbolism, and the prevalent values of it, America is more like Carthage than Rome - a country founded as a colony to make lots of money, whose chief dealings in the imperial game were financial control… which I have to believe had something to do with why the Romans felt they had to fight, to challenge the Carthaginian trading power. The details of the Second Punic War involve rumors of Fabius taking bribes from Hannibal, and Hannibal's strategy suggests that he presumed the cities of Italy could be flipped due to past economic control that was part of the wider imperial game of the time. It's a lot to say with scant evidence of what really happened, but I don't think the story of Fabius taking bribes would receive play in the Roman histories if this weren't a trend when dealing with Carthage and its remnants.

Anyway that ramble went far away from the original topic, but if you go around the rest of the world, "anthropomorphic gods" aren't a requirement, and in many cases the gods are described as inhuman - either as entirely alien spiritual entities, or as sense-destroying entities that are made of pure magic and shit like that. That's the Hindu gods for example. Where human-like deification is a feature, it is almost entirely about treating living humans as avatars of the gods or Heaven, sort of like how the Roman emperors were deified and the Heavenly Ruler of China was assigned religious functions even though he was clearly a man with a lot of nominal political power - absolute political power, since everyone technically served at his pleasure. Another contributing factor to anthro-gods was the chain of events leading to republican societies. This only existed in countries where Satan-worship was a firm tradition. Elsewhere in the world, concepts like a "republic" would be interpreted as either insanity or some strange species of treason. Anthropomorphic gods are very clearly a way for aristocracy to wear a skin-mask to rule through terror, and this became the foundation of ancient and thus modern republics. It is entirely the inverse of the claim. Republics rule through fear, not peace or merit or strength. Despotisms rule through strategic patronage (see, China and Augustan/Diocletianic Rome paying off barbarians and managing multinational empires / subduing clients to bow to the magnificence of the emperor). They exhaust their supply of fear and fear of all other humans is the default condition of despotic society. Fear in despotism is accepted as the true ruling condition of humanity, and so, fear does not have the moral effect it has on republican society. Very often the gods of Satan-worship and its analogues promote their version of Satanism as a path to power and the true freedom, and Luciferian and Promethean traditions work alongside that or seek to join or usurp Satanisms, which in turn "usurp" the godhead that is presently ruling. This persisted in the despotic period of Rome (and the Augustan system retained large parts of the republican value systems and of course, its professional army could only have existed due to the history of the republic). In such a society, the promise of favor from the Satan has a terrible but invigorating effect on the ethos of that society, whether it is Satanic in the main or not.

I wrote an article on this:
https://eugeneseffortposts.royalwebhosting.net/0007.html

So continuing on, in China, there isn't any clear analogue to Lucifer or Prometheus I could see. There are certainly analogues to the approaches I describe - it's something that would make a lot of sense based on what information and spiritual conceits about it are. The Emperor is sort of a human Satan or godhead, except there isn't a Satanic cycle or a "Satan" as such, nor is there a God. There's just a man with a lot of power and money and an army of soldiers and bureaucrats, and the concepts of gods in China are more like spirits that you wouldn't want anything to do with unless you were truly depraved. So, that is not a small incidental thing that goes away. Centuries of history that is highly specific, and unique to the lines were they were carried out, produced very different concepts of political society. Until the 19th century, there was no East Asian history of much like "republicanism". One obvious contributor to that is that in China, the guy who ruled the countryside won the contest for building the Empire, and the idea of cities electing their own magistrates was directly contrary to what he wanted to establish to protect himself and do what he did. The idea of delegating any power to the cities was entirely alien to every concept of what an emperor did and what became the political settlement until the 20th century. In Rome, regardless of the type of government, Rome's arrangement was that every city in their empire was a client of Rome the city. When Rome and the republican vestiges were no longer relevant, the city magistrates were kicked out of what power they had, and Diocletian installed his vicars much like an Eastern emperor did - and likely got the idea from knowing how such things worked, and also seeing that the remaining vestiges of the republic were a gaping problem. This didn't work precisely because the aristocracy never let go of the idea that they were somebody, and so when German barbarians come in and say they're going to run things now, the Italian aristocrats aren't going to fall on their sword, despite their newfound racism. There are too many differences between China and Rome going back to the foundation of their major cities to import one idea and say it's universal, and that idea didn't exist for anyone - nor was it ever really believed that all humans were politically universal subjects. Universalism was a spiritual doctrine particular to medieval religions from a Satanic origin. (Oh and you want my take on Islam - the name of the religion is Submission, so they just say they're here to rape and enslave you, and the icon of the moon goddess hints that this is about bringing back the glory days of Babylonian Satan-worship when the mask comes off. So, when you hear about the Satano-Luciferian project modern Israel represents, Iran and Islam are partners in that, not an "Axis of Resistance". Iran has links to the Iran-Contra ghouls in the US, and guess who is pushing for this shitty war now.)

>>7711
Doing some "theorycrafting" in my head about what aliens would be like, one of my conclusions is that God-worship would be something unrecognizable if it is practiced by them in any way, and the most likely outcome is that God-abasement would be seen correctly as demon-worship or some form of evil. Humanity's own history affirms this, and for most people who speak of theology as a good thing, theology mostly teaches of the evil to purportedly ward off the demons - that is to say, the gods of the enemy. All of the major religions of the world today are Satanic, either by foundation, philosophical exchange (Buddhism is a mostly Satanic religion with pretennsion of superficial atheism), or osmosis and no native resistance to Satan-worship (Hinduism being the big example, and Hindu aristocracy is the most rotten in the entire world. Caste systems as a living abomination.)

>>7715
>>7717
>Maybe some of the people born mid-late 70s got it, since it was starting up when they were still in education and this was new. That tends to be the most "aware" cohort - old enough to escape the truly awful ravages that came in after 1994 and old enough to have the benefits of wisdom generally by now, but not so old that they think technology is actually magic, unless they got a dose of Trump's brain worms.


?????

Are you doing a "kids these days" when you say "ravages after 1994?"

Also, the latter Gen X folks are all sold out to the right.
They have been since the 1990s.
Alot of them have Trump brainworms even worse than the Baby Boomers themselves.

>>7719
Talking about the government that came to power in the US in 1994, the Republican takeover, which was pushed heavily by elements within the school system. That's when the Nazis in the woodwork went apeshit. They won.

>>7720
Idk. I think it went to shit in the 1980s.
Also, arent schools usually pro-Democrat?

>>7721
Unions are pro-Democrat and heavily market Democrat loyalty to teachers, which made the Nazis in the woodwork antsy until they were pulled aside and given the wink that soon, they'll all be Nazis together. None of what happened in 1994 was a "partisan agenda" or something you got to vote on, and Bill Clinton and the liberals had been hammering away to prepare the ground for this and shepherded all of the reforms. It was in the Republican Party base that support for this was found, and that's what republicans (small r) always do.

>>7721
Reagan took a wrecking ball, and after that point, the government stopped pretending that they governed or that there was a public. That was the slogan - there is no such thing as society. They were saying "you're dead".

>>7722
Irony was, Republi ams were the union party up until the 1940s.

Then it switched.
Also, I think Bill Clintons presidency was really his wife's instruction.
Look at Hillary's credentials and look at Bill's.
I think theyre both neocons, not unlike Reagan and the Bushes.

Also, by republicans, do you mean, res publicia?

>>7715
>I don't know for sure what it's like these days, but I'm seeing 14-15 year olds already checking out. The ugly truth is, if you're not hitched by mid 20s, you're leaving the typical period for human reprodution. Usually peasants who could marry married in their early 20s, as that was about the age where such a thing was expected - old enough to have some reputation and standing established, fertility is most likely, the body isn't showing the ravages of age. In olden times, older men with early 20s women was not considered "weird", and advancing that "age rule" was in part a eugenic creed offensive, which they locked in when claiming men over 35 would have autistic children - the death diagnosis. Realistically, older men aren't going to start having a family late in life due to what society is now, even if they acquire the means to start late. That's not how it works today.


Actually, it was the idea that women over thirty-five that are not good for bearing children, not men.

Also, in the old days, people got married around 16 -24.

Nowadays, having a family before 26 is considered premature.
Nowadays, vicenarians who date anyone older or younger than themselves is considered "grooming".


But the real problem is the gatekeeping of sex/romance as exclusively "adult" right, that is "muh brain development."

Eugenicists wamt to extend adolescence through the twenties and thirties.

>>7744
Of course they're conservatives.

>Also, by republicans, do you mean, res publicia?
This is how the Romans understood the republic - as a corrupt institution from the outset. There was never a "good old time" except for a few Satanists among the Romans who knew what fed them. The arch-conservatives like Cato didn't idealize the past or believe in concepts like justice. That was for fags, and the Catos were smarter than that. The standard MO of conservatives is that there is no alternative, and so what Cato did was perfectly right and the only way it could have gone. Someone could go against the order of political force, but they could not go against it forever, and promising the moon to the rabble was seen as a self-serving lie, rather than a matter of "justice" which was never a thing conservatives believed in. Someone more liberal-minded and cynical like Cicero might have invoked justice, but it was never the "blind, retarded justice" Fabianism in modern times insinuated.

>>7745
Women over 35, especially if they have already borne multiple children, are less fertile. That's a mechanical fact, not a claim about their eugenic quality. Maybe you should ask yourself how taxing it is on the mother's body to give birth, nurse, and raise children, on top of all of the obligations placed on mothers and women generally. The expectation is that women would have their kids in their 20s, and after 30 was "very late". Since I turned 40, I can easily see why, and I'm just a man. A human body loses its integrity after a long life, especially a life with toil and suffering and humiliation as most of ours have been. Even those who live relatively comfortable lives with servants and nourishment will notice that they aren't what they used to be at my age.

Still, the children of older mothers weren't believed to be born inferior, which was the insinuation of the Fabians. I recall explicitly the "men over 35 will make autistic chidlren", and autism was the death word for the eugenic creed. They were making it clear "we were going to screen you out on that basis", and there was no escape. I will never forgive nor forget what was done to this country during the 1990s, this needless and pointless torture brought in by the republicans and the rot of a republic.

>>7745
>But the real problem is the gatekeeping of sex/romance as exclusively "adult" right, that is "muh brain development."

You're missing the point of why they do that. The rules are different based on your caste and whether you're "fit to reproduce" or not. You will never, ever be "allowed" or "given permission" once the rejection cycle begins. The central rule is "no redemption". That's why infantilization is done - it's a ritual sacrifice technique, and it's their core practice. Everything else stems from that. Certain people are given a right of transgression, taught to glorify betrayal, while there is an unwritten rule of who is allowed to do this, and how they are permitted to violate others.

The reality is that this is only applied to those who are marked for humiliation and rejection, or who become targets of petty-managers. I've seen guys who were decent put through this due to terrible cliques that take over a workplace, and once they leave the shithole, their mental health improves dramatically. Part of how this works is to insinuate it locally and in a particular cell, and insist "this is normal and natural and eternal". It really is made up shit.

Most people do not care about this - not really. But, they will be forced to care, and when the alien is a political enemy and the stakes are survival, it will always be easier to kick down, kick down, and never stop kicking down. There is no inverse where those who are kicked down will, by some force, strike back. Equality is haram and unnatural, and in this regard, there is no equality granted by nature. It's done specifically to destroy the very idea that there can be political equality in any sense whatsoever. All is subsumed within an inequality of ability dictated unilaterally by the eugenic creed. It then becomes illegal to say, first through taboo and then with overt and extreme violence, what this is. As it formed, it became more and more difficult to speak of this, because to do so was "unnatural", "race treason", and so on. A Satanic race cannot change.

>>7750
>Women over 35, especially if they have already borne multiple children, are less fertile. That's a mechanical fact, not a claim about their eugenic quality. Maybe you should ask yourself how taxing it is on the mother's body to give birth, nurse, and raise children, on top of all of the obligations placed on mothers and women generally. The expectation is that women would have their kids in their 20s, and after 30 was "very late". Since I turned 40, I can easily see why, and I'm just a man. A human body loses its integrity after a long life, especially a life with toil and suffering and humiliation as most of ours have been. Even those who live relatively comfortable lives with servants and nourishment will notice that they aren't what they used to be at my age.


Im well aware that female fertility is alot.
Im well.aware that women age terribly compared to men due to their bodies having to be designed to carry amd feed babies.

What I dont like is how people in their thirties amd early forties whine about feeling old.
I hang out with actual senior citizens, as in over seventy.
They never whine about feeling old as much as early middle-agers do.
And they take more meds than they habe fingers and toes, have strokes, had surgery on their back, heart, legs, etc.

Im black and the ethnic women in my respective communities have all raised a dozen children, do lomg twelve hour shifts per night for years and look so good for their age whe theyre in their seventies.

White women look like shit by forty.

>>7752
I grew up around old people, and they certainly bitched about what age did to them and that kids did not get basic things. No manners, no decency - and they were right about the kids, but did not quite know what we were up against most of the time. The few who really got it were those who perpetuated the monstrosity, or only knew how it happened in their time and did not get just how far it moved ahead. Many of them knew something was very, very wrong, but it still doesn't occur to them what was pushed after 1980 and how it was impossible to expect the youth to defend against that. Nothing could have.

In my case, I know I will not reach 70. If I surpass 50 at the rate things are going, I would be surprised. But, unless something in the world changes that allows me to support myself with sufficient income, I'm not long for this world. But, short of being actively tortured, I can live with a decaying body. It's been falling apart all my life. I got to watch my mother fall apart thanks to this shit society telling everyone to "just ignore it". Watched so many suffer needlessly because we're not allowed to say what any of this has been. So, I don't care for "talking tough" and this philosophy of projection. No one who I would trust would deny anyone the right to complain. If we cannot complain, what the fuck is the purpose of this world? Positive thinking is a Nazi cult and its adherents should be dragged out and beaten for enabling this shit.

>>7753
>I grew up around old people, and they certainly bitched about what age did to them and that kids did not get basic things. No manners, no decency - and they were right about the kids, but did not quite know what we were up against most of the time.

Every generation of old people says this.
And the irony is? All the things they accuse the youth of doing, they did the same things and didnt grow out of them. Its pure projection.

>The few who really got it were those who perpetuated the monstrosity, or only knew how it happened in their time and did not get just how far it moved ahead. Many of them knew something was very, very wrong, but it still doesn't occur to them what was pushed after 1980 and how it was impossible to expect the youth to defend against that. Nothing could have.

Most adults are only focused on their generational prime.
They do not care about the youth as people. They only see them as the harbringers of doom.

>Watched so many suffer needlessly because we're not allowed to say what any of this has been. So, I don't care for "talking tough" and this philosophy of projection. No one who I would trust would deny anyone the right to complain. If we cannot complain, what the fuck is the purpose of this world? Positive thinking is a Nazi cult and its adherents should be dragged out and beaten for enabling this shit.


Thank you. Someone else whom agrees that positivity is obnoxious.
Its especially bad when its used to shut down the youth for having genuine woes.

The glorification of hardship thats rampant in our global Anglo Protestant culture.

"Hard times makes strong men"

"Suffering builds character"

"Whatever doesnt kill you makes ypu stronger"

"Back in my day…"

Its especially annoying how its mainly male elders who promote this fascist mindset as some sort of pissing contest about who had the harder knocks in life.

Most people who glorify suffering usually are underachievers, manchildren, or sheltered reactionary rich kids.


And if you think abo it, whats killing the world is the plebian desire to "change the world".
Everyone thinks themselves as a demigod denied of their birthright to reign.

The right claims that communism is the economic system ofthe AntiChrist.

Yet from what I see, its mainly capitalism.
Capitalism is incentivising more paywalls and reducing autonomy.
Capitalism makes everyone think of life as a Monopoly game, that theres always more moves/shuffles to do.
Capitalism gives the illusion of infinite growth/innovation and piles up waste indiscreetly.

>>7754
>Most adults are only focused on their generational prime.
>They do not care about the youth as people. They only see them as the harbringers of doom.

I don't, and this generational war narrative was made by PR. The youth are the future - but in another time, we didn't drive everyone senile by 30, did not wage this siege and lie this much. It was mathematically impossible to utter that many lies before exhaustion and the limited faculties of communication made such a thing counterproductive, and in any event, it was not hard to see that for what it is, silence those who insinuate lies or build alternatives that allowed us to ignore them. We were forbidden to stop the lies, and then were were made to stand and die as they became mandatory and anything truthful became unseemly and evil.

>"Hard times makes strong men"
This is a meme written by the worst of the PR ghouls. History has shown hard times do not make anyone better. Humanity endures this bullshit, and a few come out of the other end of them to salvage what is left. If you have to wait until the war starts to build your army, you're in deep shit. That's a recreation of both German follies - the belief in the infallible war plan, and the belief that if they try the same thing again, it will work this time without any condition in the world or accountability. It really is insanity.

If you go into the past, none of them believed the bullshit they lived through - for every generation knew of some bullshit war in their time, and every generation knew the deprivation and humiliation of human society - was worth anything. They would say that every civil war was a travesty, in which victory only meant sacrificing something new to the victor who killed your neighbor. Every foreign war was usually bullshit that enriched a few men and scorned everyone else. The soldiers aren't going to refuse pay or acquire moral scruples about killing, but they didn't get anything great from war and did not believe war in of itself had any character-building quality. Most soldiers followed the maxim that men with swords don't starve, and they would rather not starve if picking up a sword was the way to do that - and often the only way, especially if they don't get a choice in which bullshit war will consume so many lives and time they'd spend doing something else. As much as soldiers bitch about building walls and trenches, they'd rather do that than actually fight. The best military career for most soldiers is to be a showpiece so that fighting is limited, and so the "war is quick, cheap, and we will surely win" is attractive to grunts, even though they know it's a bunch of malarkey and wouldn't support the guys starting these things. They know they don't get to choose the political leaders' decisions in any direct vote, and only at the end of need will they mutiny, but if they're told the war is cheap, it convinces them that marching can't be wrong, since they would naively think leaders aren't in the habit of throwing men into chemical gas attacks for stupid horseshit. Since generals of the past did not have unlimited supplies of men to throw into chemical gas attacks, they were sobered by that reality. 1914 was different in that the entire thing was setup up as a eugenics war, where the entire purpose was explicitly to segregate by caste the winners and losers, and death march everyone.

>The right claims that communism is the economic system of the AntiChrist.

Economic "systems" in that sense are the devil. (I would consider opposition to Christ-Lucifer a good thing, so "anti-Christ" doesn't resonate with me.) The typical understanding of communism for those who didn't get into political theory and praxis is "not this shit", and that's what they kept hoping to find an alternative to… only to be pushed around by the political minds who never believed in any such thing. It's a very simple thing - that all that we are made to endure is fake and gay, and we've known that for many centuries. It is not particular to modernity, for the mercantile order was bullshit, and slavery was obviously bullshit if you were the slave.

Eugene I genuinely don't understand, what do you mean when you acknowledge that virology is a pseudoscience, yet still attack people for saying viruses are fake?

>>7757
I attack the people who hector about "The Science" dishonestly, and made this argument as clear as I could. Its sad that I have to repeat myself while liars are allowed to repeat untrammeled lies and rewrite history, while the truth is always mocked and made unseemly.
I keep wondering when we stop the lying forever and say what that was. Stop encouraging this Satanic cycle shit.
That's not what humans are though.

I specifically called out the Phil Greaves clique, who know exactly what they're doing and why they did it, and why they stay on message years later when that was never the issue. No one seems to be able to ask why we would ever trust British Eugenics when they brag that they can make us stand and die.

When I say this, I'm somehow the crazy one for saying basic shit. Basic shit. They say "riiiiiiiight" like it's a joke. I'm so done with this Satanic race. They're natural slaves. I do not write for the race or humanity. I write for the others who have seen enough of this, and have been asking the same question and would only be lied to. Others try, some do better than me, but unlike Satanics, I learn. Satanics never learn, for their God does not require it. They only apply cunning through programmatic methods as befits their slave race.

Do you believe in love after love?

Do you believe in magic in a young girls heart?

Do you believe in miracles?

>>7756
Do you think that the eliteshave actually engineered human nature or ard they merely followimg naturally determined sociobopsychological pathways of reward vs risk when it comes to exploitation?

Do you believe that the conflict-dyed state of man wouldnt exist if the nations were civilian-run?

>>7762
Human nature is always engineered in some way. The entire reason for ruling is to domesticate humans like livestock. Rulers never rule by rational consent, where the ruled believe the rulers improve efficiency. We could exist without "rule" and carry on just the same, but rulers extract the energy and souls of the ruled. That is their chief function, rather than any managerial necessity.

As for whether "conflict is human nature", as soon as the active insinuation ends, only the enablers believe that. Most people avoid conflict as much as possible, including during war since no one actually believes war is good in-of-itself. Soldiers mutiny, generals really have no incentive to follow dictates from the emperor, emperors who lead armies have to demote themselves temporarily to do this.

>>7764
this is true.
However, irony is, society projects the worst aspects of human nature onto children.
I cannot count how many times people quote Lord Of The Flies, yet, adults seem to do all the bloodshed for children.

But, what I do know is that people do love drama.
We may not actively seek war, but we cannot help but be enticed by drama which indirectly leads to war.

I believe that evil isnt created by Satan. Its merely a fundamental force that requires sentient beings to manifest it.

Not unlike gravity requiring mass to be manifested.

Or how electromagnetism requires charged particles (protons, electrons, ions) to manifest a field.

>>7763

I dont think that the elites are rearranging the shape of the human psyche.
Theyre merely amplifying certain aspects for better or worse (usually the latter).

>>7758
>I attack the people who hector about "The Science" dishonestly, and made this argument as clear as I could
I guess you are referring to the way people will emphasize things like Koch's postulates, experimental procedure etc when we should instead be rejecting the institution entirely?

>I specifically called out the Phil Greaves clique
What is your analysis on them, Molly Klein, and the Paul Klein spooky stuff?

Eugene, do you think its abusrd that hot dogs and hamburgers are the American national dish yet most hot dogs amd hamburgers are mainly created and consumed in corporate premade settings?

We have mom-and-pop pizza shops out the wazoo yet its hard to find an authemtic independent butger/hot dog shop.

>>7765
That's often how Satan is interpreted - as a force of nature that is either fundamental or very close to it. I mention it because that's the doctrine the instigators are using to organize and justify what they're doing, rather than there being an entity named "Satan" which was just there.

>>7766
What do you think Freud and co have done? They created an environment to make an artificial theory of mind correct, imposing it violently and through fear. That is an inquisition designed to make it impossible to escape and accuse anyone of anything at any time.

>>7767
We should reject institutions that clearly want us dead and hold to dogmas that make the unreformable. We don't need to throw out the knowledge of institutional science, because that isn't the problem. Institutional science is wrong where the key shibboleths are concerned, and institutional science is not genuine science, but their sins are eugenics and personal rivalries and posturing, not having the wrong theory.

None of this is analysis by the way. PG clique picked this fight with me when I was doing my tweet thinking it was not controversial. I don't get into the personality cult stuff about who the good leftists are or twitter clout, because I have none and I don't seek that. So I don't make it my mission to say who to attack or who to trust. It's a safe rule to trust no one. With me, I don't tell people to "believe me", I tell them to look at the world and consider if what I say has any relevance to them. I have no reason to lie nor any reason to shut up, but I am selective with what I say and how I say it. The "full truth" is impossible for anyone to say simply because there is too much to put in written/oral form, and it is too easy for bullbait to make that dishonest.
AFAIK the Paul Klein thing was about media and education ops - putting televisions in school rooms was a new thing, and it was understood to be a destructive act, to put in programming regarding certain things. To "dose" the kids with MK stuff. Why else would movies be a thing? There were teachers complaining about this, too. They were marking caste.

>>7768
America is really made up so I'm not surprised. But, I didn't see those foods as uniquely American. They are sold because they are practical and cheap once they are set up, and America has a lot of grazing land. US exports beef around the world, is known for agriculture since colonial times. People come here to learn about farming, and Rockefeller / Bill Gates and the rich oligarchy have always wanted to destroy that and replace it with Impossible Burger. That is their jihed.

>>7769
Do ypu believe the "brain development" theory thats beingpushed?

I think its being used to justofy extended adolescence.
How do ypu exlain that two centuries ago, at 14-25, you were already established and had a modest skillset?
Nowadays, its common to spend ypur teens, twenties, and thirties with little to no life skills?

Society is actively discouraging young people from participating in worldly affairs.
"We dont wamt to hurt their develoomemt".

Yet, theyre rotting away neglecting in a purgatory of metaphysical infancy.

>>7770
What theory would that be? Brains develop. That's what we do. The "ideology of brain development" is an obvious self-serving lie for projection. They don't believe that, nor are their stories ever consistent. "The theory" on that front is always whatever it needs to be at any given time to project and talk down to someone who is despised. These people change their story at a whim, to emphasize that they hold agency and the slaves do not. It's pure Germanic ideology. So, when someone promotes a grand theory of stages of acceptable development, that shit is made up, revised, and in private different versions are given. It's all about deciding what some individual person is going to be for another person. It's never about the truth. The truth of brain development is not that interesting. If they told the truth about what happens to the brain, they would have to acknowledge that this insane society is driving actual humans senile by 40 and glorifies the ruination, and none of this is compatible with life. But, that would also break the holies of holies that allow insinuators and cajolers to push history in this way.

If you're talking about legal majority and ability, it is well known that large numbers of people have been infantilized, never allowed to "grow up", "failed to laumch", and it's one way in which people are tracked and marked, to make sure they are sorted into caste assignments and never, ever accomplish anything. None of that shit is taken seriously, except to kick down other people, again as someone imperiously decides purely for selfish purposes. Realistically, all those who operate the sorting into caste care about is cutting up brains, and marking the few people they want to keep. Most of us were consigned to die for the sake of these fucking Satanics.

After all of the posturind and bullshit people say and do, the human brain only develops so quickly, and acts in accord with a world outside of it. It cannot do otherwise. There is no realistic possibility of a child or teenager knowing as much as a 25 year old adult, and age brings wisdom and consequences even for human failures like me. Old people see things and have living memory to consult. I'm reaching the age where I'm better able to see that the ruling ideas have always been bullshit, and I didn't forget what I grew up in. I pay some attention to what they're teaching the kids now, the "newthink" that has been promoted and how it is painfully predictable. The kids will not be able to survive against what's being done to them. It's worse in so many ways than what I saw growing up. In a few ways, it is better. There is more knowledge of the atrocities that were done during the 1990s, so much that the people have accumulated defenses against the interventions that were done. But, new interventions, new terror strategies, are far more invasive than anything that I knew growing up. There were still people who could hold genuine conversation when I was young. It was after 2008 that the Nazification got truly awful. Before then, there was still a trace of the world before, where concepts of a free society were still understood, even if they were dim memories and quickly fading. Now, those concepts are utterly inadmissible. Only as an alien history could they be reconstructed. It is probably for the best that future students do not harken back to the old world we imagined to exist, since that world wasn't really what we lived in. But, something has been lost, because someone had to be an adult before 1945 to have an understanding of a free society and its principles, or would have had to listen to their elders and follow closely. The last generation that had any firm concept of a free society were the Boomers, and we saw what was done to them. The wicked and monstrous of them were selected to live, the honest were publicly humiliated and knew only suffering until they croaked. That is what Reaganism brought to the world - a screaming death cult that was allowed to go on. It's going to become worse from here, and the "way out" will be terrible things, if that happens at all.

With all of that said, all I say about social status and belonging is, when you really know you're safe, you know, and not before. The truth is, most people are not plagued by neurotic fear and doubt about their social standing. When they are cut loose and learn that they have been betrayed, they are perfectly aware of how they were betrayed, and how history will be edited to say they were always losers. The people who panic the most are those who have lied to themselves about what this is, and that is one of the truly terrible consequences of eugenism. If you lie to yourself, and the bastards can smell those who lie to themselves to believe they have belonging, you are open to suffering and horrors that most people won't know. I lied to myself about some things, and that is really on me rather than all of the horrible things others did to me. There were enough people trying to tell me the truth, back then, when such things were possible. They didn't go about it in a good way, and usually had their own bullshit and self-defeating lies they told themselves. They often projected bullshit onto me that was unwarranted, but at the time, I could tell reality from the projection and ideology, and that was entirely on me for not figuring things out, so far as that would have helped me. It would not have changed my fate, but I would be far more productive now if I didn't shirk from 18-31. I suppose in my defense, I didn't get to live, and most of that shirking was me trying to live some sort of life and approximate what normal people might call "happiness" or some sort of calming interaction. But, that's no excuse, because I knew I was shirking and could do better, and I indulged in stupid fantasies and goals. Probably the worst problem for me is that I had no context to know what to do next, no grounding in history or political thought since those things were not allowed for me, and it was on me to develop this knowledge instead of telling myself it was for other people. I was too eager to believe in self-serving stories about the future rather than see what my sense and emotions were telling me. I did do some part to say how bad it was to those who I could have a conversation with, when it was necessary, but I had to do more to understand why the Christians were evil, why the ideologues did this. It probably would have done me a lot of favors if socialists weren't so utterly pigheaded during the 1990s, but the material was there, and I had reason to investigate it. That came down to my bigotry and contempt for what I believed socialism to be, since I was firmly antisocial and saw socialism as the disease of institutional authority that created the problem. The rest came about because I was attracted to shitty communities and raging, and socialism at the time was snark-filled garbage. (That's the funny thing, now the socialists accuse the CIA of starting that, but that sort of snark and shaming behavior was in socialism's constitution, and was especially a disease of Marxism and communism.) Still, I had a freethinking mind, and I could have done a lot better if I picked up these things in 2006-2008, rather than 2016. Instead I wasted my life playing silly games and hiding from the world, thinking I was not good enough and had to stay in my lane, that others were insulting me and kicked me down for a reason and I was inferior and not worthy of anything. I prioritized all of the wrong things, only managing to not go down the darkest rabbit hole because what was pushed at the vanguard was so odious and produced such obvious failures that it was never going to attract me. I saw the Nazification of America and its partisans promoting what we're living through now, and I said at the time we live in a Nazified world. But, most Americans at the time were done with political thought and believing it could be different. We knew not to touch that stove, and most of us believed capitalism would never fail. Most of us probably believed the same humiliation and death march of the 1990s would continue indefinitely. It wasn't until Obama started pushing conflict with Russia and Putin that it was clear that they were going for a different thing, and that was entirely the volition of the rulers to cannibalize capitalism entirely and do this new thing. So, part of why I changed is because the world changed. I am very in tune with the world as it is rather than these stories, have no sense of self in the way Satanic cosmology insists, and insists I must internalize more than most.

I think the point I'm getting at is - no one grows up in a vacuum, on a preferred trajectory, and this is one reason the "generational narratives" advanced by PR can work. If you're young, you're going to be sucked into the zeitgeist due to what technocratic society is. We had the misfortune of growing up in a time of unparalleled lying, when that level of habitual lying was new and yet to be tested. In the future, youth will be told of the lies upon lies, because it would be monstrous to lie to them the way we were lied to, that was relied upon to initiate the cycle. Too many people will say the truth because they have nothing to lose. I've also seen younger people speak to each other, and there a line of communication between younger people and people our age regarding what this world has been. This is one reason sexual abuse of teens and children is pushed very hard now, to break and sever that cross-generational communication regarding political information, and keep the death cult going… except, it's not working, since much of this communication is indirect and younger people are adapting to the necessity of indirect communication and depersonalization. That is the adaptation we were trying to make, but the cult of the self was ultraviolently imposed to break our will into compliance. That is no longer viable - we cannot speak of self-gratification in a world where the only life experience of most of humanity is humiliation, and the favored are trained to brag about how alien they are from base humanity. Within the favored groups, there is an exchange of information out of necessity, as they jockey to betray each other - they can't do otherwise with the values drilled into them.

Ultimately a problem for young people, us and the current youth, is that there is far, far too much for any person to learn if they really want to know what things are. The most informed can only know a portion of this, and must work indirectly through some system or kernel that works for them. In a society where the "kernel" given to children is intentionally toxic, while the favored are given the "cheat code" that grants them impunity and a win button, this is difficult, but it has happened in spite of the ruinous pedagogy, because everyone needs something functional to navigate this world at all. History, psychology, the mind, thought, intelligence, anything that would allow us to live, does not work the way to institutions theories violently insist it does, all for the sake of eugenics. Yet, any genuine theory is wholly and absolutely inadmissible in public. The occult, Satanic ethos overrides much of what we would accomplish. That is the sad fate for us for a long time.

>>7771


>realistic possibility of a child or teenager knowing as much as a 25 year old adult, and age brings wisdom and consequences even for human failures like me. Old people see things and have living memory to consult.

I used to bekieve this, but from the generation of adukta born after the 1950s, theres a disturbing deckine of practical life experience.

Age numbers are overestimated as virtue points.
More adults born after the Boomers are stuck in adoleacence throughput their prime years and while they lived longer than a chil, their skillset is no better than one.

In fact, I would say that age only brings wisdom if youre initiated early in life.

If you had a 25-30 yo who spent most of their life in academia vs a 14 yo who spent their lives in work and business, who would you trust more?

If age brings wisdom, then why are so many middle aged adults so clueless and easily offended by changes in pop culture?
Why do they assume that the youth have better prospecrs than them?

>>7771
>about social status and belonging is, when you really know you're safe, you know, and not before. The truth is, most people are not plagued by neurotic fear and doubt about their social standing. When they are cut loose and learn that they have been betrayed, they are perfectly aware of how they were betrayed, and how history will be edited to say they were always losers. The people who panic the most are those who have lied to themselves about what this is, and that is one of the truly terrible consequences of eugenism. If you lie to yourself, and the bastards can smell those who lie to themselves to believe they have belonging, you are open to suffering and horrors that most people won't know. I lied to myself about some things, and that is really on me rather than all of the horrible things others did to me.


True praise.
The rest of your post also resonates closely to me.

Do you believe the hubbub anout UFOs being interstellar tavellers?

Theres too much weirdness going on with UFOs for them to be mere foreign biological sapients from another planet.

Alot of UFO encounters have them shapeshifting, mind control, and foreknowledge of human nature.
They seem to act more like divine beings than interstellar ones.

>>7771
>If you're talking about legal majority and ability, it is well known that large numbers of people have been infantilized, never allowed to "grow up", "failed to laumch", and it's one way in which people are tracked and marked, to make sure they are sorted into caste assignments and never, ever accomplish anything. None of that shit is taken seriously, except to kick down other people, again as someone imperiously decides purely for selfish purposes. Realistically, all those who operate the sorting into caste care about is cutting up brains, and marking the few people they want to keep. Most of us were consigned to die for the sake of these fucking Satanics.


Most ppebians unfortunately do believe the brain development theory although they use it to beat up younger people who desire autonomy and prosperity.

>>7773
I didn't say wisdom was inherently worth anything. But, there are things someone will only know when they're older, no matter how much they learn or how smart they are or any other virtue or merit you can think of; nor is there any possibility that, by happenstance or some fortune that seems moral in the world, a confluence of events would replicate what the procession of age and lived experience does to someone.

You can't let the infantilization of ideology and institutions tell you what reality or nature is, or even what society is. Human society is known to be versatile and adaptive to the horseshit pedagogues and aristocracies impose on us. That's how I thought as a kid. I didn't think there was a "system" or "movement" to join that would tell me everything, that was my "team". Most people, you might be surprised to learn, do not think of this insane conceit of society that was pedagogically and institutionally enforced. Most people have regard for the elders, see them suffer, know there was a world prior to them and have some curiosity about it. Only some idiotic Satanic fags jump on board with this Fabian, Satanic view of nature and society. To anyone who isn't indoctrinated to believe this is normal, it's a disease. Most of the world sees it as a form of terminal insanity, because it is. Honestly look around the world for once, and ask if you see people in every country with this highly specific, bizarre set of mores that are imposed in mass media - mass media intended to lie about the most basic conditions of existence, while the favored steal everything and smirk if we dare say no to it. It really is Satanic. It's flabbergasting to me that this is something I have to explain. But, it's gone on for too long now.

>>7775
UFOs are not relevant. The space alien mythos is a stand-in for aristocracy, and refers to long-term projection about humanity's future which is at the center of many occult traditions. The space alien mythos was there since the founding of the British Empire, recreated many times over. It's always been a way to sell imperialism as an uplifting force. What does the EIC look like to colonials who lived in tribal or village societies? They look like strange aliens from another world with some insidious mind control powers, and that's always been the image the British enjoy for their aristocracy.

Just off the bat, if you think at all about what it would take for space ships to travel to other worlds, and the total lack of purpose for such a journey, that gets rid of the interstellar traveler story. Any entity that could make the journey would not be like us or comparable to us, nor would they be "transhuman" or fulfill the aristocracy's delusions of grandeur. They would probably be so alien to us that they would not recognize humans as entities like itself or anything other than a type of animal, moreso than human disdain for other humans ever showed. But, more importantly, anything such aliens would find here, they oculd find on any rock, and humans are annoying and problematic compared to the billions of lifeless planets. Also, there's really nothing out in space, and no point to any such project for entities like us. It is very likely that aliens never went down the path humans did, so all of the conceits of space empires are peculiar rebrands of human aristocracy, to naturalize and essentialize it, make it appear eternal. Aristocracies always invoked such stories to make themselves bigger than the facts will tell - to tell us they're made of magic. If nothing else, an alien coming to Earth would see humans as monstrous and irredeemable, and would immediately exterminate them without any remorse or great justification, simply to remove a menace from existence. There is no possibility that an alien would see humans as anything to negotiate with. Nothing good can come from a race born of ritual sacrifice which chose to glorify that above anything else over and over again. Any alien that made it that far probably never went down that route, or corrected it early and saw it as depravity animals wouldn't do. It is always forgotten how utterly bizarre humans are just by their biological constitution, let alone that their way of life has been extremely ruinous, wasteful, pointless, and never seens to make any of humanity happy or benefit humans in any way. It is "just so", because of an animal attachment and fetish for genesis that is not warranted by the facts of nature, science, morality, or anything we would value if humans were not made monstrous. Changing this would require humans to be very different creatures, which would require us to do very different things for a very, very long time. Whenever it appears those things might happen, a terrible force in human society steps in to correct history as they see it, and that is why modernity turned out the way it did. Otherwise, after the late 19th century, human history turns out very different. 1914 probably would have been the final war, after which anyone suggesting eugenics in any way or making any insinuation would have been dragged out and shot. The war would be blood, but the disease - living under eugenics - is worse than any bloody purge that would have cured the disease. The cure is nowhere near as bad as the disease, and this is something we knew the whole time. It was simply illegal to stop what eugenics and aristocracy insisted we had to accept, and it took them generations to assert the human spirit and strip out any impulse in them or the world that would allow this to be different.

In theory it could end tomorrow, but in practice, too many humans do not want this to change, so we're stuck with it.

>>7776
You'd be surprised how many don't. The people who are most vocal about this are the insinuators and assholes. Most people dodge the question as much as possible, or throw up their hands and say "what the fuck do we know?" This is one of the things age and wisdom reveals that isn't going to be replicated, though. We would have seen generations rise and fall, children grow up during our adult life, seen the shit on offer for humanity. Those over 40 often have been the guides for the younger generation, since they're older than most new parents and might have developed children of their own, and learned something from it. But, most people know the pedagogical theories and "systems" given to them aren't just wrong, but are designed to hobble them, to tell parents they cannot change their children or protect them against predators. Those who specialize in child development will tell you, if they're honest, that the shit offered for mass consumption is lies. The truth of child development and human potential is very ugly. Most educators and most who grade children and decide their fate use far harsher and crueler metrics to decide who gets to promote. The "theories of mind" are ideology for the slaves. They are not used by the psychologists who have to make actual assessments for anything.

If you actually look at psychology, it's designed to be an inquisition. The only thing they care about is compiling permanent records and compromat. They're the priests of this new system, not scientists in the sense you are told they are. None of their models and theories stand up to any scientific inquiry - and again, those who do give actual advice on childhood development, who are not psychologists or inquisitors, will tell you not to follow Dr. Spock or "the system", which is designed to attack you and your family. Those who know education and childhood development are people who will tell you just how ruinous that mindset is, and how it is a pernicious fad that ruins so many children and so many parents - and ultimately, ruins so many who are tasked with fixing this problem, since that was necessary to some extent in the past. A problem today is that it changed from trying to mitigate the damage, to outright throwing away and promoting rot, and beating and nerve stapling children who attempt to recover on any of their own power if they're "not allowed". I was not allowed to be anything other than "retarded" until I was 18, after being shocked, brain zapped, lied to, and humiliated. I should have self-terminated. It would have been the correct thing to do. But, I did not believe they deserved the satisfaction. I wanted it to be clear that they were guilty of ensuring society would be this. Barking contradictory orders and ensuring I would fail no matter what isn't "giving him a chance" or "socialization". It's a fucking Satanic death cult, befitting this disgusting race. But, it's better that I don't get along with these people, so I don't regret that now. I wish it could be different, but that's not what humans are. Never were, never could be. They are a retarded, failed race, and chose to be so due to a few assholes, because the majority are cowardly and fearful and didn't have it in them. I don't blame them. It's not their fault that this happened, realistically. Many of them would try, quite a few try mightily to find something to salvage and some way to mitigate the damage, and most see the rot for what it is. It's the few enablers who did it for a cheap thrill that eugenics found and selected for promotion, and it is that which has damned the whole world to this. That's why they promoted the race theory over any other conception of human sociality - to destroy what we might have been over generations.

Point being - you're stuck on the ideology and the lies. Whenever you're given these obviously wrong and reductive models of what you're supposed to be, that isn't science and it isn't something the person saying it actually believes. It's them shouting "DIE DIE DIE" at you, because that's what they're trained to give to those they consider retarded. If you're not considered retarded, they will either ignore you, give you small hints to lead you to figure it out, sigh and say they really don't have an answer to give you, or - if you're someone worth keeping - they tell the truth, or something close enough to the truth, about what they do, and what this is. Most of us, and they will say this "up there", they do not want to keep, and that dominates everything else humanity has done. It's stupid and pointless and opportunistic, which is why Marxists did it.

The good news is that most of that "bad pedagogy" is the consequence of Marxist bastardizations of social theory, and bad Marxist bastardizations at that. One good thing about Marxism's defeat is that this whole "thing" has been thoroughly discredited by history. It really is a failed system, and should be studied with that in mind. That's one thing that put me off from socialism from so long - how MArxists were insufferable jerks who did not think about the shit coming out of their mouths, and seemed to have a masochistic fetish for losing.

There are substitutes of course - German ideology is hideous in all of the forms it takes, and the Fabian anarchists are the real vanguard to make us obey anything. But, "the theory" given to the plebs is only possible through ideology, or through the thrill of torture being life's prime want for its own sake in Fabianism. Without either of those things, it is so obviously ruinous that it couldn't be uttered as a lie. Someone who is lied to so profusely would say "fuck you", and get their information from someone who isn't an asshole. This habitual lying only works when it is conducted in lockstep, and it becomes illegal to stop them or work around them. In practice, for most of history, and even now, people talk in spite of the taboo against anything honest, even when they fear punishment for honesty in a dishonest world. There is only so much dishonesty and lying any human can live with before enough is enough. So, I had psychologists take pity on me and leave me a few hints, because god damn, I was fucked up and they were doing some really sadistic shit to mock me in that system. Someone had to throw me a few bones. I wish I did more with what I was given, and that is ultimately on me. Since I got out, the institutions are much worse regarding the lockouts; but, out of dire necessity, those outside of the system have worked to circumvent these ruinous theories, even if they had to operate with makeshift knowledge since the institutions put out the starvation order. By now, we have fashioned, because we must, some independent base of knowledge, and we have the capacity to never need the institutions again. That's what the remnants of Marxism are jealously defending, why the Marxists are so noxious. They never, ever want to give up the institutions, because if we leave the institutions forever, their movement is done. The last fragment of Marx that is intact will be useless to them, and we will recall all of their betrayals and mocking behavior, the way they bragged that they would cut up our brains and laugh as we die. It really is a sadistic philosophy, only offering mockery and contempt. Sadly, that is what politics is, but they should not have lied at our expense and cajoled people to accept what they did. All they did was destroy the nascent socialist understanding. It's so toxic that the neocon fascists picked it up, and used it. It's funny how the rightoids don't understanding they're taking marching orders form neo-Trotskyites.

>>7781
Do you think the Jewish Question should be rebranded as the German Question?

Necause it seems the more we study history within the second millennium AD (1000 to 1999), the more I see that Germanics have influenced the pedagogy of the modern world.

Peoppe always poimt fingers at the Jews, but theyre mainly used as glorified grunts of the Europeans, especially Germanic nations..


The racialist theory was promoted by Germanics.

The K-12 education system was made by Germanics.

The creation of adolescence was mainly a Germanic one, from Protestant tradition, which again, Protestantism is Germanic.

The urban planning we see in North America with its car-cantric/anti-pedestrian layout.

The UFO portrayals in postmodern culture is Germanic.

>>7782
The Jewish Question was a question about 19th century nationalism. There are no more "questions" regarding who is in one nation, and there really never were. That was some German race-theory, and in any event, the Jewish Question was settled - German Jews were subject to the German nation, whatever the racism of the Germans, and the Germans chose to make everyone get with the program because they're assholes, rather than any necessity or the idea being good. Jews did not want to be Germans, did not want anything to do with "Germany", and said as much, but they had to go to German schools and be pushed into compliance with German laws. Then, if they actually did that, it didn't count, because of German bigotry which reinforced Jewish bigotry, which tells you how ruinous and stupid the German institutions were in the first place, and how running schools like that should never have been encouraged.

Nothing about this by the way is a "racial quality", like Germans literally are encoded to organize their society like this. But, the "German race" as we know it was locked in by these institutions. Before, they were warring states, and while there was a German group and concept of Germany, nobody believed a German race had anything to do with political unification in the way it was insinuated. The French became the French because they shared one quality - rule under a single sovereign and shared obligation for mass conscription, which led to democratization as a current in France, which led to the concept of a nation in the genuine sense. Germans were a race, a culture, and a nascent nation, but it was a nation that rejected democratization - a nation that was, from the outset, parodic in its constitution. Had Germany not been fucktards about democracy and liberty, did not have the toxicity of the Hegelians hobbling their thought - and many Germans were smart enough to see that this sucked, whether they were poor or rich - you could have had a German nation, and very likely you'd have a greater European polity form out of internationalism. For a time, a "United States of Europe" was suggested as a path to peace and world federation, because that was the great idea of those who wanted this to not suck. But, their hatred of the people, and this sick infatuation with aristocracy, did it in, and they have themselves to blame. The British encouraged this stupidity in every way they could, but there were no great riots against the ruinous ideology and institutions. Those institutions only had to select for the monstrous, and we have been stuck with that ever since. With those institutions and a few advances in warmaking technology, the balance of power shifted. Where mass armies made nations possible, the new order of technocrats and expensive weapons platforms were built specifically to destroy democracy - to destroy all concepts of the nation. To go that far required destroying everything that made this apparatus possible, and this must be declared "progress".

It's not a uniquely German question, for the same ideas exist in Britain, in America, and around the world, in some fashion. They were exported as a model to emulate. Why, I will never know, but certain assholes have a fascination with creating human failure.

How could it have been different? I don't think that was possible for humans. Not in the long run, not with what they were up against and what was worked out before 1914. The only possibility that this didn't suck would have been if, instead of doing full eugenism, everyone in 1991 said "hey, wait, these people who poisoned us for generations are actually shit and their theories don't actually make a master race", and we could finally cease doing this. That is what I dreamed would happen in my naive days, thinking that there were enough people who had some interest in anything else. But… no. That's not what humans are, and I was told to give up that hope many times. It is my fault for dismissing that as pigheaded, when they were trying to tell me, this was already litigated. It's stupid, pointless, and wholly unnecessary.

History does not move inexorably in the way the theories insist, but it is clear by now - and I saw this in the past 15 years - that the rulers have gamed everything, and operate with a very different theory than the "grand narrative" given for public consumption. It would be difficult for us to replicate this approach, since it relies on specialized knowledge and those whose profession is to control the world. We have lives to live, while for those who operate the machinery, this is their job, organized in a monopoly specifically focused on maintaining this lockout. That lockout is why we are going through any of this. Otherwise, the likely result would be globalization, some world federation - it would be anti-democratic due to what humanity chose, but humanity did not need democracy to live. That was not enough for the rulers, though. All they ever wanted was to see us suffer, and so, here we are. Anyone who believed that turns into something good by the benevolence of rulers was either delusional or an asshole. But, I'm an ass, because I thought there was enough self-interest, and rulers liked having slaves and relative tranquility. It was only after 2008 that it was clear they just hate us that much, and none of them ever had a particularly good excuse or any expectation that this turns into anything. All they think about is "getting ahead", and the sick thing is, that was really the "null state" for humans.

It's not doomed forever necessarily, but any future worth living in would have to rise from something that doesn't exist now and won't exist as an aim of most people. It won't come into existence by necessity. Necessity drove some adaptation, but nothing can adapt to what's coming for the world. When they do kill us off for good, and they will either kill us off or we will be so defeated that we are no longer relevant, all they will find is their own foul hearts, and nothing to show for it. Humanity refused any concept of a world that could be different without radical changes, and any idea that would move in that direction is automatically inadmissible, insane, "retarded", and deemed evil, while pointless malice, struggle, and cruelty are self-evident and considered "smart". No matter what happens, humans are locked into that, with no other idea in the world with any serious currency. Arguably, it would be correct to not allow humanity to "win" on such terms, because that will encourage them to do even worse things as their means to impose them arise. I don't think it will be relevant, because most of humanity is done with "humanity" as anything to work with. I really don't think humanity will want to live at all. They've seen enough, and if this is what humans are going to be, suicide before adulthood will be the normal experience, and those who live will be left with nothing but a few baubles and their smugness. Smug will not sustain a society. It can sustain an empire as long as it can destroy all rivals, but no one would want to live around that or encourage any part of that. So, those who live will find they do not much at all, less and less. How this plays out depends on the survivors and what they do with what remains. In the best case scenario, humanity would find a "way out", but that will only apply to the impasses that are foreseen now, and we can extrapolate further to the kinds of things that would have to happen as maintenance of this thing that comes out the other end (assuming eugenics doesn't truly last forever, in which case, there is nothing to aspire to and we all should self-terminate and think nothing of it, and that's not interesting since it's a simple prescription and self-evident). My guess is part of the solution is that humans will depart from the sense of self and being that was imposed by the present society, which was always artificial and never served our actual existence, and this will be irrevocable. It will not return to a "human standard", because that standard never existed in the way that was naively presumed, nor is that standard one we would want to go back to. Most of us really wanted security and nice food - not "pleasure" in a vague sense, but simple things like "not being raped and tortured for bullshit", which were too much to ask in our time despite being very cheap and requiring no great theory or anything but rulers letting us live out our lives. I wanted to believe we could do this, we'd all die off without reproducing and self-termination would become the predominant type of death when the despair really set in, and that would be enough. We were already dying before eugenics began. That simply wasn't enough for them, and the flipside of population control is that the rulers really can't control RE-population - they can't force people to breed in a world they don't want to be part of it, which means only selfish sadists are prolific breeders and family life is not tenable, which the sadists encourage to select for more of their own - and that is really the quality that was valued, rather than anything meritorious or desirable.

I expect future humanity will first disavow nearly all of its history up until the breaking point, seeing it as monstrous behavior not to be repeated, and then the aims of humans start to diverge from anything we can predict. What comes out of that is anyone's guess, but they will not regard appeal to nature as any sort of argument. They would likely acquire a better understanding of themselves.

So, the thing that gets me about "utopian futures" or aiming for any ideal state that is permanent, is that it misses entirely any purpose we should have. We have always known that "perfect systems" are folly. That was never the purpose of establishing technocracy of course, nor a thing anyone pined for. Most people who embraced technology believed technology would make lives easier for enough people, and there was no reason why technology and labor were natural enemies. It would seem quite the opposite from the perspective of the lowest class where I'm at - labor and technology would always collude against us, and their hatred of the lowest class was far greater than any hatred they had towards each other. If they really had freedom to act, very likely the commons and labor would see the futility of conflict between their orders and the struggle session forced upon them. Labor gains nothing of value for it, technology would lose everything for the sake of empty baubles because of some aristocrats' insinuation and the claims of nobles who used to be someone, they swear. But, for that to work, they would have had to negate the "threat" of the lowest class that disciplined all classes - anyone can be ritually sacrificed and tortured at any time, and there is nothing in the world that stops this out of some goodness in men, or goodness in the world, and certainly not goodness from God. The middle orders would have to get over their hatred of us. In the past, this was an open question. But, history has judged, and humanity made clear what it valued. Many of the actors who made the fateful decisions many times over can't even say what it was for. They did what the imperatives of biologically centered politics told them to do every single time, and they have died for it.

Really though, the only conclusion that should be drawn from intelligence regarding human history is that there IS nothing to go back to. Everything we ever did that was good, we did in spite of genesis and "human nature" or "the human spirit", or any of the religions and institutions that were prevalent. Some institutions might have been neutral enough to not create problems, but institutions did not have any moral authority whatsoever. The law is unjust by design. The truth and anything good was always in the world, but "nature worship" derailed what was necessary, as did self-indulgence. The answer, we have seen throughout history and it has been acknowledged many times. That is that, at the end of the day, we live for moral purposes rather than ideas that "look good" or "should be good". We have a sense of right and wrong, even a primitive one, because this is necessary to even navigate the world, let alone say anything about it other than some tautologies of no interest. It would not be possible to describe from my vantage point a wholly different way of life that would be able to defend itself against aggressors, beyond some vague expectations. In every case, the lowest class would no longer be threatened and would no longer exist as it does. Very likely, the new function of the lowest class would be scholarship and the lowest intellectual work. In some way, this happened around 1990-2000, or would have happened, if only humanity did not have the most pigheaded conceits about institutional right and what we're here for. So many of the lowest class would want nothing more than to have a level of stability and some sort of work that is tolerable and doesn't exist to make everyone else suffer. That would be enough for us. We know we're never going to have anything great, but we didn't need to be put through this. The world didn't need to be put through this by a few assholes who wanted to grandstand about who the smart people are. Maybe, if there are others who really want the world to be different, they will find a way. I'm giving my small contribution, and I tell people right now - if you don't like what I write, freely ignore it, repurpose it, find something better. But, as long as we're trapped in this institutional pedagogy that was designed to destroy minds faster than any pedagogy before it, we're stuck in the same pointless cycle, and there is no reason why any of us down here should buy into any of those theories. If nothing else, we should see this world and humanity as a lost cause - but it wasn't the world's fault and certainly not natural that we "have" to do this. The world let me live this long, has granted so much to me in spite of what is "supposed" to happen. So too have many other people offered much to the world out of a sense that this would make this existence tolerable and cost them nothing. Now, though, that calculus cannot work. Abomination has won, and so our expectations of any future are grim. I believe the best course of action for most of us is to do the barest minimum, look at humanity correctly as worthy of the utmost contempt, and build whatever world apart from this we can, in a way that allows something to be shared. It won't win any political struggle, but with "leaders" like we've had, not encouraging that stupidity would do more for struggle than following them for anything, even if we do nothing but languish. If humans want the political to be different, that's on the class that has any agency regarding those things now. Mass politics is gone forever, at least in any form that it has taken for us. I believe, in any event, humanity will come to see despotism as the only workable form of government, and stop pretending that there is a political answer to any of this. It will be ugly, but that's all that remains, because every effort to do something else was methodically destroyed. If it's going to be different, I don't see it any time soon, and if that does happen, it doesn't include me. I can only write for myself and what I'm here to do. I am not the only one. For so many of humanity, the concept of a future was forsaken long ago. It's not in our hearts to want such a thing, and if we were told to comply with it, we would only comply on terms that suit us, which likely means we would go away and regard such a settlement as an alien. It would be ignored as best as we can, and we have offered to pay you goods and tolerate the intolerable just so we have the only things we ever wanted out of this world, since human society wasn't going to allow us to have shit and made that clear. I don't want nor need the esteem of others. It would be better if we got along well enough to not have to do this, but I imagine if that were followed through, it's because humanity recognizes I was right about its fate, and so none of this argument would be needed. They have their thing, I have mine, and there's not much else between us - as it should have been from the start, as far as I care. We could have coexisted on very different terms, perhaps, and that is still a possibility. So long as eugenics is screaming for this and allowed to keep going, we're stuck here. So, I ask - what in blazes do my critics think they have to lose at this point? They have to realize the institutions will never let them in, or they've already been admitted, tasted that blood, and there's nothing to say. If you all join a special club, you can't receive too much from it, compared to the obvious benefits of not doing this shit for a few screaming eugenist retards and perverts.

>>7784
Have you ever noticed that in action-adventure media franchises like shonen anime, superhero films, war documentaries, etc that most villians are motivated by pursuit for utopia?


Most peoppe think supervillians are only pople obsessed with power or revenge.
In reality, supervilliamsonly see power as a means to an end, not within itself.
Only small-time villiams care about power.

Supervillians want to make a society that operates like supercritical fluids.

Thanos from Avengers: Infinity War with his desore to wipe out half of all sapient life in the universe.


Orochimary from Naruto with his obsession with immortality.

Even in the Bible, Lucifer wants to make a perfect society where he is king

Anytime someone makes a doctrine for a utopia, things always end up in ruins.

Even socialism, which claims to be "logical, dialectic materialism" is deluded.
Most people whom are pro-socialist nowadays think socialism is free handouts from the givernment to spare them from working.

>>7785
Ypu keep poimtimg.back to.the 1990s as the start of the eugenic era.
But I think it began at least two centuries earlier.

Maybe not even that.
The crux of all the modern world problems started in the 1500s.

The Renaissance and the Age Of Exploration really opened a can of wrms.

Nationality as we know it didnt exist before the 1800s.
National identity is a modern concept.
Most people who lived in the same nation only recognised tribes, prefectures, boroughs, districts, etc.

Ancient Greece fell due to constant beef with fellow city-states.

Irony is, globality was the more time-honored tradition,not nationality.

>>7786
I don't notice it because I don't want many movies and I hate that trope whenever I see it, because I know it's the writer saying "this is the best system ever and there is no alternative". Before 1970, this idea that villains want paradise is very uncommon. More common was the villain desiring a dystopia, or the villain believing that he was perfectly right and good and happened to be on the wrong side, or presented as the rival. Something that was lost is that there weren't going to be stories for men, regarding what men thought about, which was going on a stupid adventure and doing stupid shit to tell some war stories.

The Bible isn't a work of fiction and utopianism is part of Christianity's founding conceits; but, Lucifer isn't making utopia. He's among the critics of God's plan, says it's no good and that Man is actually shitty. In a way, he's the source of those who would be malcontents under "this is the most perfect system ever created", and he has a point. That's kind of what you're supposed to get from the religion - not that Lucifer is the villain, but that he actually has a point and God is a jerk. The version of Satan as the Big Bad didn't get airtime until the middle ages, and there, Satan is presented not as the supreme Dark Lord ruling the world, but as a miserable creature representing dysgenic failure and insanity. Early Legal Christianity was more into the death cult aspect and declared that the world was evil and sinful not because it was "made of Satan", but because it was obvious in deep shit and the situation for the Romans was hopeless. You get the sense that they were quite happy to lay down and rot and insist everyone else do the same, and in that time and place, it was very attractive. No one was going to stop them as long as they prayed to a god that was better than the society of shit they were leaving and glad to be rid of. Many of the people, living in a world of drunken barbarians and perverse pagan gods, figured that a clean death was way better than anything they could find in this cesspit. It's something you don't get now because the rulers do not allow "clean death", and it's not suicide, but Christians at this time aren't particularly motivated to prosper. Those who do have a determination to live summon their strength not from faith in imminent victory and glory, but from a grim bloodletting that tells them nothing in this shithole matters but Christ-Lucifer. I can see how this appeals to many who have little else to live for, if they live in a society where this cope is not policed, and they are in an environment where they can be useful. Christianity has a very nihilistic core like that, and it's still felt today. You don't have the same sort of nihilistic determination elsewhere, because the nihilist can turn to a doctrine telling by reasonable enough explanations and laws why humanity is doomed and evil, and that it is possible to live on next to nothing as long as you have the Christ. That's always been a strength of Christianity to many of it adherents, rather than this "God is good because God is bigga" faggotry and the Positive Christianity slop. Warlijke Romans, of course, could invoke any god, because the only thing they actually cared about is which god wins and what's in it for them. Christ-Lucifer certainly won a lot of shit, stubbornly resisted a lot of shit, and then really conquered a lot of shit after 1492.

>Ypu keep poimtimg.back to.the 1990s as the start of the eugenic era.
1990s are when there were no restraints, and eugenics replaced capitalism and liberal concepts of the state as the apex idea for good. It is also forgotten that nearly all of these institutions were the result of socialism's existence rather than "proper capitalism", and so right away, the hardline anticommunists wanted "real capitalism" back - which is to say, starvation and pure cruelty.

If I stop shirking and get to the 6th book, this history will be recounted somewhat - but I don't begin "eugenics" as a movement until Galton and his immediate precursors like Darwin, Spencer, the slave power, and institutions which could for the first time consider total control of social interaction and mediation of reality. Socialism and Marxism are accused of eugenic qualities, but "eugenics" as any worked out doctrine relied on Darwin, Spencer, and Galton. What was done before then had eugenics-like beliefs, and that is found throughout human history, but that has the effect of making eugenics vague and tantamount to any selective breeding. Most eugenics-type functions were carried out by the family, and the state and religion explicitly had little or nothing to do with forcing children to die and definitely did not force-mate on a regular basis, let alone mandate that it be universal. Within churches, arranged marriages were the norm and that was a vehicle for eugenics, but eugenics proper required a state policy and a coup of the state. Eugenics has to fill all of the offices of state or co-opt them, so that eugenics is superior to all other laws and always makes the final commanding decision.

What are ypur thoughts on people whom choose invest their romantic desires into fiction rather than meatspace?

>>7787
I think Christianity glorifies suffering because most of its patrons are passive agressive materialists who dont have the balls to go full entreprenuer.

Most self-proclaimed Christians are often midlife crisis victims with vindictive tendencies.
Theyre butthurt about their generational zeitgeist being dead and gone in the secular world.

They offer nothing but motivational platitudes and talk about peace and love but will bash other religions and science.
Yet when their special opinions are questioned, they cry about persecution.
Christians whine about being exclusively targeted yet their religion is the cultural default of the modern world.

Even now, atheism is only accepted when it uses vaguely Christian language when explaining natural wondrrs.

>>7788
I don't care what people do with that.

>>7789
I've heard this line before and it's a lot of Galtonite projection. No such self-indulgence is at the core of anything people truly believe. If they only think "me me me", they're just Satanists who will glom on the dominant mores of the host society. Such people only pay attention to the Satan and its vestiges, and they are always cajoled into anything. They have no core. There is of course a draw of such people to Christianity, since Christianity does have a Satanic ethos within it and coddles such people as useful tools. But, those people aren't really following a coherent teaching of Christianity. They're instinctively attracted to the biggest god they can supplicate to, and this is a feature of religious thinking generally - an attraction to the "biggest evil", to the One. Christianity promotes a very self-indulgent version of that and a habit of hypocrisy.

Usually the Christian masks off once they're inculcated and "with it", and someone either gets it or doesn't from a young age. I've seen enough of their hypocrisy throughout my life, and all of the projections done in the name of Christ-Lucifer.

The problem isn't that atheism is "unknowable". The problem is that humans are evil, and religion in the form of god-abasement is close to natural for them. Most of humanity never asks themselves seriously what atheism entails, because they're stuck on self-indulgent faggotry or their attraction to evil, ritual sacrifice, and the malice of their race, choosing to be part of a race because they are intellectually cowardly and most never had to be much else. Even when humans show any inclination to do otherwise, and many do, there is a pressing that is more or less effective on individuals, that they can't resist forever. It gets worse in a society predicated on destroying all things which impeded the Satanic ethos. There are humans who try very hard to do good around such a evil race like humans, because they must, and Christianity attracted and perverted that desire as well. None of this is unique to Christianity, but Christianity is unique among religions for a variety of reasons. It was the only one premised on exhaustive doctrine and law in the sense we regard it. Islam invented its own theory of law at the center of the religion and established unmistakable rules and precedents for the jurists, while Christianity kept this an open question and protected the institutional authority of the Church and its vestiges. The dominance of institutions is what sets Christianity apart from anything else. Islam has no "institution of institutions" and is set up specifically to counteract that. That's why Islam separated from Christianity - it formed as a counter to the Christian claims about such law.

If you're engaging with religion as "me wantee", you're not engaging with religion. You're engaging with faggotry. That is a Germanic disease, and it is a Galtonite and Anglo disease. I think it goes without saying that the Anglicans are just Satanists without any mask of it, and many Anglo-centered Christian groups have masked off for centuries. Satanism is in their blood, and then the German Satanists were the mainstream of their society. Germans always resented Christian concepts like law and mercy for the faggiest reasons you can imagine. There's no "there" there. But, the English, they're much more menacing and thoroughgoing. There's your daily racism from your boy Eugene, but it is beyond justified given history's judgement.

I have nothing but disdain for all hitherto known religions, and for many of the assumptions that humans made about religion. But, for myself, I have a religious view of the world that I have refined in recent years. I did not always have this, and it is one of my regrets that I shirked developing this. No one can be a proper and true atheist without conducting this exercise for themselves. Everyone believes in something, and I had my beliefs all along. What was missing for me is a lack of context since the Christians always attack people like me and are trained to reject and shame us from birth, and the other religions have nothing to offer whatsoever. Their only contribution is that they led to the gradual defeat of the malevolent deities and fetish objects humanity worships. I usually don't talk of my hatred for Judaism since that's still haram and is conflated with anti-Semitic Nazi faggotry, and I hate Nazis and Germans far more which is saying a lot. One difference with Judaism is that everything they teach is for the Jews, and they have nothing to do with Gentiles except as an adversarial relationship, so there is no surprise what Jews think of Gentiles, and their typical interaction. The Jews don't particularly deny their tenets when they are forced to be honest. They aren't a universalist religion and never suggested that they should be, and so, unless they actively prosecute some conflict with me, I have nothing to do with them, and that would suit everyone best. But, if humanity saw all of the false religions for what they were, they probably would not abide the existence of their institutions or a religious nation following the false god and its consequences. This isn't about the god's existence or non-existence, but the malice at the heart of every human religion. There is no such thing as a "good religion" or "good god", that is the proper purview of religion. If I want to talk about a good deity, it wouldn't be a religious matter, and a "good deity" degenerates into a fetish object or a convoluted metaphor which would be far removed from what goodness actually entails. If you want to find the good in this world and attach to it, it would be far better to start with the small vestiges of goodness. The One is axiomatically evil and monopolistic of that evil, and so it must be rejected. If there is a "one god", it would not demand worship and abasement of the sort human religion has. Very likely, such an entity would be entirely concerned with affairs alien to us, and among its own kind, the "one god" would be a malevolent force for the divine denizens of heaven, whatever their nature. But, to us, and to the world generally, its attitude may be seen as beneficial, so long as no one is using the god as their excuse for the usual Satanic practices common to Man. Satan, conceptually, has always been the spirit of Man and its rites of ritual sacrifice. The concept of the Satan has always been a way to understand how spiritual authority is contested, more than an actual "thing", but it has like any evil manifested, and it is the only god most humans really understand since it is a god of their creation - the human race's "national god" so to speak. It has no other, and every religion has understood that a "God of humanity" would be Satanic, with all that entails. If someone found goodness in such a construct, it would be heavily qualified based on what we know about Satanism. For any god worthy of our attention as anything other than a malevolent force to be understood and fought, such a god would have nothing to do directly with humanity and grants no worldly favors. It would be grossly offensive for humans to approach such an entity, even a minor one, after their conduct. The purest of humanity who did no wrong is still yet unfit to ask such questions, and even if they were, any gods - if you could call them that - do not pertain to humanity's woes and struggles. The struggles at the center of the human experience are the domain of the Satan - the adversary - and the "heavenly power" that would be Satan's own adversary, operating on its own terms. The spirit of Man cannot stand that they will never be anything other than disgusting apes, no matter what technology they devise and whatever fads they follow as their latest scam to cheat Heaven and each other.

I don't need to believe there is a god to make some judgements. The world and history we know quite well is enough to pass damning judgement of humanity in total. Humanity has failed on its own terms. For a long time, I believed gods were a self-evident absurdity or could only be a metaphor. But, in recent years, I've come to believe that these things come from some place. Still, ascribing to "gods" or anything like them human qualities like will or relationships is a gross folly. Any such entities, including the Satan which is an egregore of humanity's attempts won by ritual sacrifice to break into this realm, would be their own thing, whose nature is entirely divorced from anything humans do.

The problem with so many peoples' understanding is that they are trained, especially now, to reduce the human animal to the sensual and a crass version of materialism, and this was an invention of Satanic doctrines from very early on - to lie about the most basic conditions of knowledge and how we have known anything. Most humans ignore the esoteric and philosophical, working out whatever systems they can to navigate this world, and disdaining self-indulgence as they should. That is one of the noble qualities that humanity can still claim, before it is stripped from them by the eugenic creed.

The reality of humans is that they are not a "living system" - and truthfully, no life-form is purely reduced to life-functions or its component materials. Life itself is limited to this in its description, but what "we" are - or any animal is - entails its interactions with the world, and it interacts through this central nervous system and the creation of this entity that is best described as "consciousness", which has its own existence apart from life or death. It is not a "soul" in that sense, and this crass thinking of such concepts is part of the definition game eugenics and Satanism always plays. The soul is something very different, which isn't immediately relevant to our inquiry. We can prove with little effort that conscious experience is phenomenal, but we cannot prove grand claims about the universe or essences without some due diligence when asking the question. That is what the Satan cannot stand - that anyone would say no to its imperious demands about what we "are". It always works this way.

Anyway, there are many true atheists out there, sometimes not knowing they are atheists at all let alone true ones. Many self-professed atheists are either humanists (ergo Satanists), "enlightened humanists" (vaguely spiritual and inclined towards goodness, but still in the thrall of an essentially Satanic world-system), or Christians who are too dumb to realize they're assimilated Christian values and submit without thinking to a Christian-Luciferian cosmology. There are then people who just don't think about religion at all and try to avoid it as much as they can, which is the vast majority of humanity. Religion only "worked" for a sort of person who really wanted to ask these questions. Most of humanity throughout its existence only saw religion, correctly, as knowledge of the evil, and not the sole fount of such knowledge. It was and remains necessary knowledge, and the Galtonite and Fabian proclaim that we are not permitted to know evil - the evil they intend to force us to accept infinitely, as their god commands of their Satanic race.

And "their Satanic race" is not any race long established like the English or Germans, or a catch-all like the "white race", but the race of the eugenists who collude and see themselves as a race apart from "base Man", who have chosen to be a race and accurse themselves and the world by their actions every day, in every way, as their religion exhorts them to do.

If there was such thing.as reincarnation, would ypu come bavk as a flesh-and-blood human in an alternate social reality or become an aethereal being free from the constraints of biology and psychology?

>>7794
I believe now there may be something like reincarnation, but it's not going to be karmic or guided by any right or wrong, and we are unlikely to have any say in the matter. It would not be a good thing.

Very likely if I were reincarnated, whatever the nature of that, I would do one of two things:
- continue what I set out to do in this life, if I am aware of this life's mission, since I have already vowed to chase down eugenists in Hell because I hate them that much.
- Cease to exist since nothing good could come from another life of me, if this is possible. Failing that, I would do nothing, or do nothing more than "holding actions", with a nihilistic view of what I'm doing.

I don't see much purpose in looking at the next life as a progression to a higher stage or something to look forward to or dread. The only way this would happen is by technological means of some sort, even if it is a technology alien to us. Such a thing wouldn't be "reincarnation" in the sense that is commonly invoked. It would be some sort of soul-capturing sorcery which is unlikely to be used for good. Reincarnation is invoked because it invokes an image of eternal, inescapable slavery. It is a very evil doctrine.

That said, we're already free of the constraints of biology and psychology, because biology and psychology did not place the restraints of "nature" presumed to operate in the first place. All biological life entailed was a material basis which we know well. From that tiny, pathetic muck, everything we could ever aspire to become arose. There was never any eseential "break" from the material origins. This has worked for a lot of ill - humans cannot escape what they and their ancestors did in the past - but it also works for good. No matter what humans become, anything that had an existence as "us" is tainted by human experience and its behaviors. If I were something other than human in another life or a world where we didn't do this, then all I've done here is irrelevant to that life. As for psychological constraints, there simply aren't that many. Human faculties are very extensible. It is the most basic thing humans do with any technology, and their bodies and every faculty available to them is a type of technology which is honed and extended. Human potential is not infinite or unknowable. There are limits to what humans can ever accomplish, and realistic limits before calling it a "human" ceases to be appropriate in any sense. But, within those constraints, humans have sufficient potential to not do this shit. We could stop doing so much evil overnight, and for the most part, humans do that. It is only when push comes to shove that the evil takes over and makes all of those accomplishments unsatisfying or actively harmful. Looking for a technological "fix" is a contributor to the woes of mankind, as I explain in my book. Reincarnation mythologies feed into the worst of that impulse. Like I said, it's a very evil tenet, and Hinduism is a very evil religion. That's why aristocracies love it.

As for an alternate "social reality", social reality is ultimately what humanity made of it. Everything I write about politics is ultimately a choice. We could, by some strange fluke, either conduct the political very differently than we have, or abandon the political. The former has to answer the same questions we would answer with the political question to a sufficient degree. The latter, we can do any time, and that is what most people do now. If you're not interested at all in the political and it is far removed from your concerns, you already live in an "alternate social reality". For most people, politics is something that came for them, not something that was truly "innate" to anything they do or value. We have to live in a world where there are malevolent actors, but most of us would rather not. It is that alone which has done the majority of work to allow this existence to be largely tolerable compared to how bad it could be if the madmen really did make reality. At no point does politics become truly inescapable, "one with Nature", in the way aristocracy insinuates. We already see that the political question is increasingly removed from things that actually happen or as any policy goal. Ultimately, political society requires a productive economy to exist, and it has been a choice whether to allow people do what they were good at or to make them suffer and scream out of a mistaken belief that this will engineer society to be what it "should" be. The torture we live in for the past century is wholly unnecessary and not at all "natural suffering". It is highly artificial. Without eugenics, the course of world history would have been a drawing down of national armies, recognition that the travesty of 1914 or things like it were wholly inexcusable, and eventual backsliding into a low-population, largely unremarkable technological society, until such a time that equitable distribution of the social product became far more expedient than any belief that the social betters ought to starve out social undesirables. It would be far easier to pay off the lowest class dregs like me in exchange for ensuring they don't have much to do with society, and keep open whatever contribution we would be willing to offer so you would all leave us alone. I would, in another world, do some silly things with my life, then fade from this world, and no one would see any great monstrosity from that. That's what I tried to do for years, thinking that might be enough and that someone out there would appreciate silly things. It doesn't work that way, though. If it did, that would be too decent, and we can't have that, can we? Every justification and posturing to keep humanity suffering in vast numbers is premised on a eugenic interest and function which insists very violently to make the world bend to it, and an aristocratic interest that simply loves the carnage since that secures their interest's rule over the rest of us. Without aristocracy, the proprietors would have been ignored, then stripped of their claims for lack of any function they really accomplished. They would, by virtue of their former wealth, probably revert to a lower order without the same horrific consequences that they face under aristocratic conspiracy. The order of proprietors would be too wasteful and ruinous to abide if human society were premised on doing nice things or even tolerable things that were self-interested. There is a very peculiar sense of self which is tied to making others suffer that eugenics enshrined over what the naive consider "rational self-interest". The rational self-interest of people unfettered by aristocratic games would be to not do any of this, even if it meant losing their social status and privileges. Those privileges aren't worth this, and many involved are not ignorant of what they are made to do by some seemingly spooky force and that this won't give them anything they want, whatever they say to themselves to justify their actions if they even bother justifying it. Many in the higher orders admit that they've really shit up the world for dubious purposes, but are policed by those who are very much for keeping torture and death and the general fear as strong as they can. Aristocracy itself has varying views on what they do, but under eugenics, they are exhorted to "abolish all sentiment", per Galton's orders, and so what lingering decencies they had in them have by now been bred out of them. The aristocracy now explicitly selects for malice, rather than inheriting what they stole from a lower order or what they brought with them as members of the lower orders entered the aristocratic world and its game. The aristocracy too occupies an "alternate social reality" where they present themselves as gods or demigods in a grand story glorifying their own existence, among other pleasures available in that world which are haram for the rest of us. Aristocrats never have to beg and scrape for the privilege of a shitty Wal-Mart job. They do not live by the same rules as the rest of us, and remind us of their exemption every single day, in every single way.

So, this question really doesn't interest me, since they're really asking questions of this particular political question we live with in the present era or its immediate past and future, rather than some other world where we didn't do this or we become very different creatures. If I were in either of those situations in a reincarnated world, and I didn't carry on this jihad against the eugenists (hopefully because it would now be moot), I'd live in that world, would be a different person, and so it has no relevance to what I want here and now. Like I said, if I wanted to paper over what's wrong with this world, I can do that now without any grand technology or metaphysical magic. I'm quite good at distracting myself if I must. I have chosen not to because it's bullshit to watch this happen over and over again.

Do you agree that adults are too morally obsessed with childhood?

Do think its abusrd that adults gush on about innocence andideaism but then condemn and sneer at children for expressing said qualities?
But then, when kids develop worldly/precocious instincts, adults feel threatened.

Imo, adults are very self-sabotaging creatures.

They have all the power to do what they ant yet they dont appreciate it
tthey wanna throw it away for a few minutes of "carefree innocence".

Childhood as we knowit is very castrative.
No allowance to work or date or discuss politics.


Adults tell kids to explore the world andchange it but put heavy restrictions on them.

Like, whats þhe pointof childhood then?
Adulthood is way better.
But unfortunately, such a sentimwnt asmine is considered autistic.

Most of the people whining about adulthood are often older established people with all the respect that society gave them.

Imo, I think adulthood has been reduced to a consumership program where age nu.bers are used as permit rather than ones morality.

Thays why most adult entertainmet is just nihilistic vapid sociopaths wreaking havoc on the world around them for fun.

Thats why snarky sarcastic language is used as quotes on billboards.

>>7796
I don't think most people are obsessed with childhood. Most people aren't abuse victims in the way I amd presumably you were, where we are made to emphasize what they did to us and taught we're not allowed to fight back. For most people, they leave childhood behind and there is some life for them, however meager. Maybe they have a wife/husband or something to call their own, some association they belong to, something to do. I would gladly leave the person I was assigned to be as a child, if not for others insisting "he will always be a child". The only thing I thought about as a child was not being a child in this situation. I have no desire to return to that state. But, unlike many who are taught mental splitting to join the ritual sacrifice, I refuse to play that game or associate their sick torture cult and ideology with maturity. I won't forget what it was like being a kid, will not abolish all sentiment towards children the way eugenics wants. There are young people saying what this shit is more than they did when I was young. They know they're being lied to. Too many people talk to each other, and the conspiracy of torture does not have the natural appeal its partisans believe it ought to have.

I really believe the present order of forced infantilization will not hold. They're trying to keep this rot and death going for the current crop of youth, after they successfully imposed ritual sacrifice on the prior generation, getting the filth of my cohort to be the worst shits humanity has ever known. We are, out of necessity, adapting somehow, and eugenics can only push the torture and death button as their religion insists is natural and eternal.

What will happen won't be a return to "old values", but what should have happened a long time ago - a willingness to say that this order imposed during the 1930s never worked and was a horrible idea. The US should have allowed a true revolt against this, not finalized the victory of the eugenic creed. But, the damage is done. Eugenics has permanently scarred humanity. The present verdict is clear: failed race.

>>7797
>I don't think most people are obsessed with childhood.


If they werent, they wouldnt be whining about "kids these days" over any mild youthful nuance.
If adults were not obsessed over childhood we wouldnt have "stranger danger".
More than half of the modern sociolegal system wouldnt exist.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-says-kamala-harris-prosecuted-border-actions-rcna173194
>On Sunday, Trump doubled down, saying: "Crooked Joe Biden became mentally impaired — sad. But lying Kamala Harris, honestly, I believe she was born that way."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/12/politics/new-york-times-trump-offensive-remark-harris/index.html
>Former President Donald Trump called Vice President Kamala Harris “retarded” while attempting to convince top Republican donors to pour more money in his campaign, The New York Times reported Saturday

Dude, Eugene, it's scary how accurate your predictions are. I guess you were slightly wrong that Harris would be the first to start with the retardation accusations against Trump. It's the opposite. But you are probably the only person on the internet who knew this election would end with this kind of shitflinging over one of the candidates being "retarded."

Do you think this means Trump is going to win now?

>>7803
Trump has said shit like this since 2016, when it was "edgy". My prediction is that this would become part of the mainstream, and "retarded" would be the greatest of the insults. Trump is testing the water for a general r-bomb barrage. Of course Trump would throw his r-bombs, but Trump is a true retard. Kamala is an alkie but I don't peg her as retarded.

>>7803
>>7804
Wasn't Trump's stick that he would make up pointy-tonged nicknames of his political opponents. 'Crooked-Hillary' and 'Sleepy-Joe' was rude but there was a kernel of truth in those nicknames too. 'Retarded Harris' seems un-inspired, and then it's just rude. I don't think this would be a political phenomenon paralleling the 'edgy trump' phase.

>>7804
>Kamala is an alkie but I don't peg her as retarded
Even when I'm shitfaced drunk I can form sentences far more articulate and meaningful than her. That said maybe it's a mistake to perceive her incoherent babble as a mental deficit. She could be different behind closed doors, and the babbling and cackling does seem to be effective programming for a certain segment of the population.

>>7806
She received the Evil Programming and thinks this is totally normal, because in Washington, it is. They've gone insane in the capitol. She has to drink to live with what she's become. You'd feel bad until you remember these people have gone beyond Nazis in their evil.

>>7806
Intelligent, strong leaders who understand economics make millions as CEOs and entrepreneurs. Are you really this shocked that everyone who couldn't make it in the market and had to settle for politics is a spineless socialist who cannot string 3 words together.

>>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