>>7841Stop, 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.