Why is the West still so obsessed with the Jewish, Christian and Islamic irrational religions? They are moral power systems created by humans to control. They have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with spirituality. They prevent enlightenment. They are opium.
And why is the Westerner so obsessed with science, technology, status and wealth? One should think, that rational scientifically thinking people should be naturally drawn to the rational and logic spiritual systems of the East like Buddism or Advaita Vendanta.
Instead, the Westener appear incredible arrogant, stupid and childish to me. Incredibly intelligent people still think they find any meaningful lasting truth in science. It is based on a dualistic system of thinking. It will always fluctuate between poles, will by definition never be settled. What a waste of time to use this method to find answers to any meaningful existencial topic.
Everyone looks outwards, no-one looks inwards. Pepole try to explain the world, the stars, the atoms but have no clue who they are or what gives them true peace. What a sad madhouse.
You call the sole dissident a loser. On a society level that might be true. And if the dissident has no true spiritual purpose and footing, he is a loser. But to define your status in relation to society always ends bad because death and desease is the great equalizer. Barack Obama and Elon Musk will die exactly the same lonely death as a homeless alcoholic on the park bench in LA. Trying to find your purpose in any form of success will alwyas end badly.
That doesn't mean one can't be succesful. But that would be an unimportant side effect. Ultimately, there is only this moment and how it is met. If it is met with total awareness all is good.
The west is drawn to science, technology and wealth because technology confers power advantages over neighbors; therefore there is always an arms race toward more and faster technological innovation, otherwise a nation is at risk of being conquered by enemies. Almost everyone chases higher status because higher status confers greater reproductive advantages over others; have high status, be able to secure better mates and have more offspring. Everyone wants this.
Re: calling dissidents losers, I am applying that term descriptively in the context of Clique Theory and not pejoratively. Losers do not benefit from the establishment and therefore they are the only ones who can freely criticize it; everyone else is compromised by the benefits they receive, whether that is jobs, status, reputation etc. And only losers spend a lot of time online looking into political and historical issues...
Re: Buddhism, I agree that it has many attractive qualities, and the benefits it confers its adherents -- an understanding of the nature of pain, of how everything is temporary, of our unconscious desires that blind us -- are substantial, and more mature than western religions. I have especially enjoyed Vipassana meditation... Still, doctrinal religions in the west can be viewed to a large extent as uniting disparate groups of people for political and military power, and for that it has been successful...
All this makes total sense and is quite obvious if we drop our blinders. The logical conclusion to me is there is no way to win in this game of life if it is explained and seen through the mechanism of power. Even the metaphorical hand-full of the most powerful and rich will lose at the end. The vast majority loses constantly and is obsessed to get an edge. At the core of this survival and social ladder game is our total identification and obsession with our body/mind. Our existencial fears and desires to fight in tbe hunger games are exclusively caused by this false imaginary identification with this body/mind. That creates all this suffrring and miserable life.
That's why Adveita Vendanta is the last and highest teaching.
It starts with the core problem - our false imaginary egoic conditioning. Every thing else is part of the Matrix and simply moves the deck chairs around.
> "Incredibly intelligent people still think they find any meaningful lasting truth in science. It is based on a dualistic system of thinking."
Fellows as disparate such as Roger Penrose and Donald Hoffman do seem to use the means of the sciences to explain the hard problem of consciousness, which in turn could be considered rather idealistic.
> "But to define your status in relation to society always ends bad because death and desease is the great equalizer."
Ironically enough, you are thinking in terms of individuals (or their mass-man variation, which can be argued not to be individualistic, but anyway). The issue at hand is that the entirety of the Occidental kind is going extinct. There will be nobody to remember and to create anymore, or not in the same style.
The golem NPCs can be made to appear beautiful - see Juche Korea, or Hitlerian Germany.
Re: German occupation of eastern states: what are your sources for brutality? And are they involving Poland, with an existing and blood feud, or more extended? I have read the eastern memoirs of the Belgian Leon Degrelle, and by all accounts the SS was quite welcome. More personally, I have Ukrainian friends who have told me war stories from their grandparents of being treated quite well by the Germans, some local women even marrying Germans, the church being reopened, and it being a wonderful reprieve from the Stalinist famines. Also, Germany invested an enormous of money building civilian infrastructure in the Ukrainian marshland that wasn’t all directly related to the war effort (of course this fell off after the winter offensive failed).
Hi John, good question. Degrelle comments in a kind of roundabout manner his memoir The Eastern Front that the Germans were rough on the eastern states at the start (despite being initially welcomed by many of its occupants as liberators, given how brutal the Soviets were, as you point out), and they later modified their policy. I could probably look up the specific passage I'm thinking of if necessary. See also the Generalplan Ost which references both Poland and other Eastern European countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
David Irving's "Hitler's War" comments on Hitler's ambivalence regarding how hard to be on the eastern populations (I believe brought on by strategic and tactical considerations versus his desire for lebensraum), an ambivalence that was never fully resolved.
Yes, Lebensraum, and that Hitler definitely prioritized his people over any other. But I still chuckle a little at our modern oh so sophisticated standards for war and conquest. Ah for the days when war made enemies of all over your border and conquerors piled heads in city squares. Now only the strong and young die in war. But that was the invention of Westphalian Peace. I suppose civilian bombing is changing things somewhat though.
Sometimes I think the liberal mind would balk less if the Germans had leveled the east with bombs as we did to Germany than if they had said one mean thing to the locals.
"The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems."
I closely follow distance running. The perfect encapsulation of the oblivious and obligatory condescension you/Kaczynski describe here coupled to the ruthless blank-slatism you/Kaczynski also highlight -- well, one of many such encapsulations that qualify as "perfect" -- was the insistence starting in the 1990s, when Kenyans and Ethiopians began winning almost everything in sight, that one, their success was rooted solely in hard work and "guts" (because they're poor and primitive), and not at all in genetic talent; and two, that East Africans would never dope because they're afraid of needles. All in the course of accusing their interlocutors of racism.
Now that countless Kenyans have been caught doping, the same crowd, two decades later, has ignored their own old blather and moved on to other absurdities.
Jul 21, 2023·edited Jul 21, 2023Liked by Neoliberal Feudalism
A curious article, as always! Will touch upon only two points for the time being.
1. Doesn't every culture breed normie NPCs, because golem cattle is what most humans naturally are?
2. The Unabomber is effectively putting forward the argument I saw in Conservative Swede's article, fascinating. His idea about mental disorders - not too sure, as Chechar points out the prevalence of biological psychiatry (gays and transvestites not being seen as sick anymore notwithstanding).
But my main counter-argument would be that it is not inherently a "leftist" idea that biology is not fate. Children are way too easily and commonly abused to be blamed. Edit.
3. > "There are no solutions to social problems, only trade-offs"
Way too idealistic, the main thing that has broken in the Aryan mind is the ally-hostile identification. Even feminism would be of little concern if all non-Whites were exterminated.
4. > "This gives the left the moral upper hand in arguments, because appeals to science and rationality beat appeals to God or religion in the modern era."
Actually, wrong on all accounts. I have given a listen to my fair share of Dawkins and his ilk - they directly appeal to morality as transcending Nature. Isn't it precisely what the so-called "naturalistic fallacy" is about?
5. > "This is likely because many Americans on the right are religious Christians"
Very true. As I constantly say, homosexuality positively correlates with the spread of Christianity. The Christcucks of Russia too deny that - but the Muslims of Asia will not.
6. > "their beliefs are objectively and scientifically false"
See, I have an issue with this statement. Game strategies are not scientific by definition. The issue with neo-Christians is that they adopt a strategy that is most likely to lead them to collective suicide, yet the correct strategy is inherently unknowable.
In practice, it is exemplified in how the Muslim beliefs are as delusional as the liberal ones, yet Muslim strategies have turned out to bring more babies - hence tentatively amounting to a success.
7. Re: Star Wars. Playing devil's advocate, I will say that any story needs a conflict, and an underdog story is much more captivating too. The example is not dorky enough for Chechar who liked SW8 (The Lat Jedi - personally, hate the Anglophone penchant for not using the numbers instead of film names.)
Probably unrelated (finished reading - it's not!), but my personal moral from the SW sequel fiasco has been about the ineptitude of the Christian Empire - hence my Chinese intervention fantasies justification.
8. Have you not mentioned the permanent revolution concept from Tom Holland's Dominion?
9. And regarding the WW2 being preplanned by evil bankers hypothesis - you have not responded to my retort that the defeat of France destroyed any such such plans. Again, how do you imagine the English dragging the isolationist Russia and America into the war in Europe, had Hitler and Hirohito not attacked them both (sorry, I won't use the cuckspeak calling him Showa)?
2. The argument is that both biology and culture have impacts on outcome, it's not solely one or the other. Although measured IQ has been the best correlative outcome determinant humanity has come up with so far and that is highly correlated with genetics.
3. Leftist whites care much more about intra-status games (i.e. their status versus other whites) than they do about status games against other races. So I think this comment misses the point about how the liberal mind operates.
4. If you read some more of Brett Anderson, he comments directly on this point: morality is a Darwinian adaptation to bind groups of people together against their enemies. This is why people view their morality as objectively true and cast out those who disagree, which in tribal times would have meant death; they need their tribe to be united against enemy tribes. People feel their morality and then issue rationalist justifications for their feelings; they don't rationalize their morality from logic.
6. "The issue with neo-Christians is that they adopt a strategy that is most likely to lead them to collective suicide, yet the correct strategy is inherently unknowable." Yes, but it is clear that a correct strategy would lead to an end result that does not involve collective suicide.
8. Is that not what the egalitarian ratchet effect is ultimately about?
9. The way globohomo operates, for whatever reason, is it wants to force its enemies to make the first military move. In Japan's case America cut off Japan from its critically needed oil supplies which was a firm red line for them. In Germany's case Hjalmar Schacht was tasked in 1939 with ending Germany's economic miracle (and Hitler fired him as a result), and Poland started butchering large numbers of Germans. When Germany invaded the SU in Barbarossa the Soviets were only weeks away from launching their own invasion of Germany. This same pattern repeated again in 2022, when globohomo put an army on the doorstep of the Donbass, shelled it relentlessly, then had Zelensky threaten to join NATO and threaten to put nuke's on Russia's border, essentially forcing Russia to attack them. As long as globohomo forces its enemies to make the first military move, it feels like it can portray itself as the defensive victim. I've covered this in the long essay how the Bolsheviks were owned by the Rothschild central bank clan from its embryonic stage, and I will delve into more of these dynamics when I cover the book "Conjuring Hitler" by Guido Giacomo Preparata at some point down the road...
If you don't mind, here's a few thoughts on Preparata's thesis.
IIRC, Preparata posits that the Bank of England calculated the total GDP of England, American and Russia as higher than that of Germany. But it only works if they had known the future configuration of the alliances - something that wars are about to begin with.
England provoked Hitler into attacking Poland - what if Hitler had remained peaceful? Did the bankers' entire plan hinge on Hitler's predictability? Could be, and Hitler could be a spy, but doubtful.
And where does France figure in all of this? Is everyone forgetting what the war started like? The Anglo-French strategy was about utilising their immense resource advantage (not in manpower, however) to win a defensive positional war against Germany. And it was Stalin who tipped the scales in a genius move - by supplying raw materials, he evened out the balance.
Of course, we now know that the Anglo-French defence collapsed in a week. And that Russia's strategy misfired terribly. And that Japan cave the USA a casus belli. And that England never signed a peace treaty. And that Hitler miscalculated and lost. In a word - pure chaos.
P.S. Regarding Stalin - his alliance with Germany gambit does not look as risky if one considers the possibility of an Anglo-German anti-Russian alliance. No idea how feasible that was, but was likely to Stalin.
3. All NPCs care about in-group status. The point I raised is that the issue lies not in "social issues", but in the most basic ally-hostile identification apparatus. Again, the Europeans are going extinct not due to fratricidal wars between capitalists and communists - the Americans have won totally, yet have only empowered foreign nations such as China or Türkiye or India.
4. Way too many disparate arguments. My main point was that the liberals are effectively employing a religious argument - not from science at all (see their shunning the racial science). Whereas your point is confusing, too - is Brett Anderson implying the Christian morality to be innate? The one morality that erases all differences between groups? Not getting it.
6. This is a much deeper point. What we have is scientific data and strategies of survival. Said strategies may or may not be based in scientific fact. The question is whether a strategy with a basis in science can be conceived of, and whether its creation is worth and feasible to pursue. (I would go on a limb and proclaim NS and Juche to be close in spirit to that, but I'm biased.)
9. That's the way of Bismarck vis-à-vis Napoléon III, too. Was Bismarck part of the globohomines? Makes sense for the lazy fat Americans to understand their weakness (pacifist isolationism). That's the genius of Roosevelt, and deserves commendation, not scorn. Also reflects terribly on both Hitler and Hirohito - Japan could have easily bypassed the Philippines to conquer the Ost-India.
"Butchering large numbers of Germans" - Hitler controlled the press in Germany, and had no issue with sending millions of Germans to die, rather childlike of you to think so.
Suvoros-Rezun's thesis is bunk. Zelensky's attack on Donbass is bunk. Putin being a rational agent of a sovereign Russia is bunk.
> "As long as globohomo forces its enemies to make the first military move, it feels like it can portray itself as the defensive victim."
A trillion rupee question - who's the audience? Now you are talking akin to a 9/11 conspiratard. The government has no need to explain itself to the goyim cattle. Sure, back in 1941, Japan helped Roosevelt immensely to start the hostilities. But it's not like admiral Yamamoto was an English spy (correct me if I'm wrong) - Japan simply blundered, there was no way for America to force their hand truly. No overarching control.
(You could repeat about the embargo - but again, either bypass the Philippines, or retreat from China. Or jump into the dragon's teeth - the outcome known.)
P.S. WordPress has banned my blog on its platform. It's all saved on the two archivers, but still unfortunate.
Actually, I have to clarify point 9, it's rather confusing as to what we both mean.
Does America want to force its enemies to blunder? Yes, always useful.
Does America control its enemies like puppets? Depends - Japan no, Iraq maybe, Russia yes.
Does America need its enemies to make blunders? Japan yes (pacifist cuckoldry otherwise), Iraq no (the first Gulf War had had no 9/11), Russia no (controlled demolition anyway).
Does America need to portray itself as a victim purely culturally? Maybe for their élite's fetishist desires, but not to the public, no, the American public will never doubt America's goodness - because again, the control of the media is complete (just like in Hitler's Germany and Juche Korea).
In the end, your banker thesis does warrant my comparing you to a 9/11truther - especially the book by Preparata seems to paint the Japanese as totally blameless - again, most likely due to the conspirologists' main idea of a world government.
Way too idealistic, the main thing that has broken in the Aryan mind is the ally-hostile identification. Even feminism would be of little concern if all non-Whites were exterminated.
The majority of aryans spent most of their time at one anothers throats... non-aryans were not a concern for the most part.
I have given a listen to my fair share of Dawkins and his ilk - they directly appeal to morality as transcending Nature. Isn't it precisely what the so-called "naturalistic fallacy" is about?
Yes, the so-called atheists describe man as an immoral talking monkey... yet somehow he is actually nice because something something egality equality equity nicean christianity.
Very true. As I constantly say, homosexuality positively correlates with the spread of Christianity. The Christcucks of Russia too deny that - but the Muslims of Asia will not.
Aren't the muslims big time boy buggerers? ''Bro it's totally different to western style homosexuality we swear''. The prophet muhammed was described molesting young boys on multiple occasions
The issue with neo-Christians is that they adopt a strategy that is most likely to lead them to collective suicide
They see it as convergence, kalergis brown hued mono-people. Like dead space unitologists worshipping the hive mind... we wuz insects/borg n shit
yet Muslim strategies have turned out to bring more babies - hence tentatively amounting to a success.
The Jewish warrior cult has a number of advantages... chimp out for the platonic theocracy (all non-muslims designated as fair game) and also they view themselves as being the ultimate jew. So no awkward relationship with YHWH' gang unlike the christians.
has been about the ineptitude of the Christian Empire - hence my Chinese intervention fantasies justification.
Chinese intervention? Aren't they just a slave race owned by the rothschilds... There is a theory that america plans to lose a war to china by 2025. The roths can then use china as a proxy to fully enslave whitey ''sorry goy but the evil chinese won :(''
> "non-aryans were not a concern for the most part."
And the Aryans missed the time window when the foreigners could have been liquidated.
> "Aren't the muslims big time boy buggerers?"
Not sure sure, but paederasty is not homosexuality. And no homo marriage.
> "Chinese intervention? Aren't they just a slave race owned by the rothschilds..."
Pinpoint where exactly they are owned? They seem to have a country, a history, some sensible economy and some semblance of national pride. The Chinese were a hair's breadth close to dying, but they lucked out, and succeeded.
I don't get the disparaging remarks against the Mongoloid race, in truth. They retarded themselves in the feudal age. But every single of their exploits since has been successful - Meiji, Mao, Kim Il Sung and Deng.
>And the Aryans missed the time window when the foreigners could have been liquidated.
Is it necessary to kill everyone who is not european? Seems rather excessive, but then again I am a Zeus Protocol enjoyer so I am being hypocritical...
>Not sure sure, but paederasty is not homosexuality.
Wasn't the term paedophilia invented to describe homosexual boylust? That is how they reproduce... Most child abuse prosecutions are for homos.
>Pinpoint where exactly they are owned? They seem to have a country, a history, some sensible economy and some semblance of national pride.
Owned by a rothschild central bank, all they have can be taken away quickly... Their country is more like a slave pen, a big one at that. Schwab sure sings their praises anyway. Their economy was given to them by the lizards who want to deindustrialize the west. Their national pride is fake soviet style shit and they willfully abolished their own history. I like the japanese mongos tho
The mongo advantage is that they have no time for messianic convergence theory, they ain't gots no time fo kalergi and co.
> "Is it necessary to kill everyone who is not european?"
Depends on the objective. If you want to have a clean conscience before your descendants, you make the best future for them, not bring your posterity troubles from your age. Can kill - should kill.
Sure, there is a viewpoint about drastic differences in intelligence prompting indifference on the part of the superior kind (the way humans don't go out of their way to kill ants, or AI humans) - but then, I must admit that races are not different enough to warrant such hubris :))
> "Owned by a rothschild central bank, all they have can be taken away quickly..."
Ah, not this schizophrenia! Taken away... how exactly? By the force of American arms? Or alliances? Both are at play anyway. Yes, geographically, China is vulnerable due to the corpse of the Japanese Empire's being occupied by America. But that's probably not what you mean anyway.
> "Their country is more like a slave pen, a big one at that."
And America is free to suck or kneel before their people of blackness overlords. Great choice. Every country is a "slave pen" by definition. Every president is a slave owner by definition. I'm Mr Zelensky's serf, for one. It's normal. Going against the nature of things is anarchism. (And in reality, such anarchists are all too often impressionable Christcucks, equally in bondage to their delusions.)
> "Their economy was given to them by the lizards who want to deindustrialize the west."
China has been grown by suicidal American Christcucks who are desperately trying to kill themselves. No lizards involved.
> "I like the japanese mongos tho"
Umm, Japan doesn't even exist? It's a fake and gay American colony, living on borrowed time, mercifully bestowed upon them by the idiotic Christcucks? Japan is literally a Christian zoo. A testament to the Aryan race's triumph, and to her suicide.
A big problem with your theory on Paul is that you quote a FAKE liberal translation. Compare to the KIng James Version. The version you use added the words "Sisters" and cuts out the word "flesh". Compare below, you did not quote Paul's true words. Paul was talking about the flesh versus the spirit, the fake translation changes it.
By the way, the early Roman Republic was very egalitarian and had elections.
NIV - FAKE Version You Quoted:
"Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. "
King James Version:
"For [k]you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many [l]noble, are called. "
"Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? Because the 'foolishness' of God is wiser than men; and the 'weakness' of God is stronger than men..." blueletterbible.org/kjv/1co/1/18/
You have me digging up old memories. Back when I was in college I spent a lot of time with liberal intellectuals because I loved to debate. The Russian/Soviet history professor would hold weekly salons at his home and I was an eager participant as the token libertarian who enjoyed a good fight.
In those days, it was I, the libertarian, who was accused of assuming too much human equality. The liberal position was that dumb people would get trampled under a free society so we needed Big Government to protect them. (And these liberal intellectuals read Vonnegut -- and liked it. Yes, there was such a thing as a left-liberal who understood the dangers of going too far.)
I dig up another old memory of having an argument with a relative who had a psychology degree.
I argued that we had some inborn nature, and held up as an example the fact that kittens exhibited
personality differences from before their eyes opened. She countered that humans don't have instincts, only drives. The only immutable human trait was IQ. All else was malleable. She cited a study
where some psychologist raised his son as a girl and got a man who acted as a girl.
Notice! The mainstream position of left-leaning psych majors was a mix of today's alt Right and Westboro Baptist Church.
We are in a crazy mania similar to the Culture Revolution, the French Revolution, or the Salem Witch Trials.
Really fascinating, but I would object to comparing the situation to the Maoist Cultural Revolution, as the high-IQ Chinese case amounted to purging society of any Christian influences. This figures in my hypothesis about Mongoloid superiority, too. Compare the Orientals to the English, the Soviets, the Americans - all of whom literally destroyed their empires.
> "dumb people would get trampled under a free society so we needed Big Government to protect them"
Doesn't this go against the idea of racial desegregation, however? What you are describing is literally Apartheid.
This egalitarian drive of the liberals is a misguided and misunderstood spiritual force. They also weaponize it.. Jesus' teachings were twisted and weaponized by Paul. That humans, any manifestation, are unique and different is extremly obvious and a matter of simple observation. A simple metaphor explains what is going on: Every gold ornament (unless mass produced) is unique and different from other ornaments. Yet, the underlying essence - gold - is the same for all ornaments. The spiritual essence from which we arise and manifest is the same for all humans and other life forms but each manifeststion is unique. That's all Jesus and other self-realized masters ever said. That all people should be equal goes against any natural law or spiritual wisdom. They possibly also confuse the spiritual experience and drive of "being one with the world" with "being equal and the same as the others". People being equal is forcefully achieved by aligning mental conditioning of egoic entities. Being one with the world, including all people, is an awakened state where the individual egoic conditioning is shed and rendered unimportant and living in an acute awareness of the essence of all things is achieved. All religions wesponize these concepts to solidify a certain psychological conditioning (e.g. a Christian, Muslim, Jew) and abuse our inner spiritual longing for essential being by creating this false illusion of belonging to a bigger unifying spiritual group. But they are opposing states of being. Thats why religous people have to "belief" in essence (God) and need to be taught moral rules. In contrast, the truly spiritual person lives in full awareness of the essence and individual actions are part of the natural spontaneous unfolding of the universe and therefore always right. They dont need to be taught a moral code. They teach essential morality through their existence.
Why is the West still so obsessed with the Jewish, Christian and Islamic irrational religions? They are moral power systems created by humans to control. They have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with spirituality. They prevent enlightenment. They are opium.
And why is the Westerner so obsessed with science, technology, status and wealth? One should think, that rational scientifically thinking people should be naturally drawn to the rational and logic spiritual systems of the East like Buddism or Advaita Vendanta.
Instead, the Westener appear incredible arrogant, stupid and childish to me. Incredibly intelligent people still think they find any meaningful lasting truth in science. It is based on a dualistic system of thinking. It will always fluctuate between poles, will by definition never be settled. What a waste of time to use this method to find answers to any meaningful existencial topic.
Everyone looks outwards, no-one looks inwards. Pepole try to explain the world, the stars, the atoms but have no clue who they are or what gives them true peace. What a sad madhouse.
You call the sole dissident a loser. On a society level that might be true. And if the dissident has no true spiritual purpose and footing, he is a loser. But to define your status in relation to society always ends bad because death and desease is the great equalizer. Barack Obama and Elon Musk will die exactly the same lonely death as a homeless alcoholic on the park bench in LA. Trying to find your purpose in any form of success will alwyas end badly.
That doesn't mean one can't be succesful. But that would be an unimportant side effect. Ultimately, there is only this moment and how it is met. If it is met with total awareness all is good.
The west is drawn to science, technology and wealth because technology confers power advantages over neighbors; therefore there is always an arms race toward more and faster technological innovation, otherwise a nation is at risk of being conquered by enemies. Almost everyone chases higher status because higher status confers greater reproductive advantages over others; have high status, be able to secure better mates and have more offspring. Everyone wants this.
Re: calling dissidents losers, I am applying that term descriptively in the context of Clique Theory and not pejoratively. Losers do not benefit from the establishment and therefore they are the only ones who can freely criticize it; everyone else is compromised by the benefits they receive, whether that is jobs, status, reputation etc. And only losers spend a lot of time online looking into political and historical issues...
Re: Buddhism, I agree that it has many attractive qualities, and the benefits it confers its adherents -- an understanding of the nature of pain, of how everything is temporary, of our unconscious desires that blind us -- are substantial, and more mature than western religions. I have especially enjoyed Vipassana meditation... Still, doctrinal religions in the west can be viewed to a large extent as uniting disparate groups of people for political and military power, and for that it has been successful...
All this makes total sense and is quite obvious if we drop our blinders. The logical conclusion to me is there is no way to win in this game of life if it is explained and seen through the mechanism of power. Even the metaphorical hand-full of the most powerful and rich will lose at the end. The vast majority loses constantly and is obsessed to get an edge. At the core of this survival and social ladder game is our total identification and obsession with our body/mind. Our existencial fears and desires to fight in tbe hunger games are exclusively caused by this false imaginary identification with this body/mind. That creates all this suffrring and miserable life.
That's why Adveita Vendanta is the last and highest teaching.
It starts with the core problem - our false imaginary egoic conditioning. Every thing else is part of the Matrix and simply moves the deck chairs around.
> "Incredibly intelligent people still think they find any meaningful lasting truth in science. It is based on a dualistic system of thinking."
Fellows as disparate such as Roger Penrose and Donald Hoffman do seem to use the means of the sciences to explain the hard problem of consciousness, which in turn could be considered rather idealistic.
> "But to define your status in relation to society always ends bad because death and desease is the great equalizer."
Ironically enough, you are thinking in terms of individuals (or their mass-man variation, which can be argued not to be individualistic, but anyway). The issue at hand is that the entirety of the Occidental kind is going extinct. There will be nobody to remember and to create anymore, or not in the same style.
The golem NPCs can be made to appear beautiful - see Juche Korea, or Hitlerian Germany.
Re: German occupation of eastern states: what are your sources for brutality? And are they involving Poland, with an existing and blood feud, or more extended? I have read the eastern memoirs of the Belgian Leon Degrelle, and by all accounts the SS was quite welcome. More personally, I have Ukrainian friends who have told me war stories from their grandparents of being treated quite well by the Germans, some local women even marrying Germans, the church being reopened, and it being a wonderful reprieve from the Stalinist famines. Also, Germany invested an enormous of money building civilian infrastructure in the Ukrainian marshland that wasn’t all directly related to the war effort (of course this fell off after the winter offensive failed).
Hi John, good question. Degrelle comments in a kind of roundabout manner his memoir The Eastern Front that the Germans were rough on the eastern states at the start (despite being initially welcomed by many of its occupants as liberators, given how brutal the Soviets were, as you point out), and they later modified their policy. I could probably look up the specific passage I'm thinking of if necessary. See also the Generalplan Ost which references both Poland and other Eastern European countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
David Irving's "Hitler's War" comments on Hitler's ambivalence regarding how hard to be on the eastern populations (I believe brought on by strategic and tactical considerations versus his desire for lebensraum), an ambivalence that was never fully resolved.
Yes, Lebensraum, and that Hitler definitely prioritized his people over any other. But I still chuckle a little at our modern oh so sophisticated standards for war and conquest. Ah for the days when war made enemies of all over your border and conquerors piled heads in city squares. Now only the strong and young die in war. But that was the invention of Westphalian Peace. I suppose civilian bombing is changing things somewhat though.
Sometimes I think the liberal mind would balk less if the Germans had leveled the east with bombs as we did to Germany than if they had said one mean thing to the locals.
"The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems."
I closely follow distance running. The perfect encapsulation of the oblivious and obligatory condescension you/Kaczynski describe here coupled to the ruthless blank-slatism you/Kaczynski also highlight -- well, one of many such encapsulations that qualify as "perfect" -- was the insistence starting in the 1990s, when Kenyans and Ethiopians began winning almost everything in sight, that one, their success was rooted solely in hard work and "guts" (because they're poor and primitive), and not at all in genetic talent; and two, that East Africans would never dope because they're afraid of needles. All in the course of accusing their interlocutors of racism.
Now that countless Kenyans have been caught doping, the same crowd, two decades later, has ignored their own old blather and moved on to other absurdities.
A curious article, as always! Will touch upon only two points for the time being.
1. Doesn't every culture breed normie NPCs, because golem cattle is what most humans naturally are?
2. The Unabomber is effectively putting forward the argument I saw in Conservative Swede's article, fascinating. His idea about mental disorders - not too sure, as Chechar points out the prevalence of biological psychiatry (gays and transvestites not being seen as sick anymore notwithstanding).
But my main counter-argument would be that it is not inherently a "leftist" idea that biology is not fate. Children are way too easily and commonly abused to be blamed. Edit.
3. > "There are no solutions to social problems, only trade-offs"
Way too idealistic, the main thing that has broken in the Aryan mind is the ally-hostile identification. Even feminism would be of little concern if all non-Whites were exterminated.
4. > "This gives the left the moral upper hand in arguments, because appeals to science and rationality beat appeals to God or religion in the modern era."
Actually, wrong on all accounts. I have given a listen to my fair share of Dawkins and his ilk - they directly appeal to morality as transcending Nature. Isn't it precisely what the so-called "naturalistic fallacy" is about?
5. > "This is likely because many Americans on the right are religious Christians"
Very true. As I constantly say, homosexuality positively correlates with the spread of Christianity. The Christcucks of Russia too deny that - but the Muslims of Asia will not.
6. > "their beliefs are objectively and scientifically false"
See, I have an issue with this statement. Game strategies are not scientific by definition. The issue with neo-Christians is that they adopt a strategy that is most likely to lead them to collective suicide, yet the correct strategy is inherently unknowable.
In practice, it is exemplified in how the Muslim beliefs are as delusional as the liberal ones, yet Muslim strategies have turned out to bring more babies - hence tentatively amounting to a success.
7. Re: Star Wars. Playing devil's advocate, I will say that any story needs a conflict, and an underdog story is much more captivating too. The example is not dorky enough for Chechar who liked SW8 (The Lat Jedi - personally, hate the Anglophone penchant for not using the numbers instead of film names.)
Probably unrelated (finished reading - it's not!), but my personal moral from the SW sequel fiasco has been about the ineptitude of the Christian Empire - hence my Chinese intervention fantasies justification.
8. Have you not mentioned the permanent revolution concept from Tom Holland's Dominion?
9. And regarding the WW2 being preplanned by evil bankers hypothesis - you have not responded to my retort that the defeat of France destroyed any such such plans. Again, how do you imagine the English dragging the isolationist Russia and America into the war in Europe, had Hitler and Hirohito not attacked them both (sorry, I won't use the cuckspeak calling him Showa)?
That's a lot more than two points!
1. Yes.
2. The argument is that both biology and culture have impacts on outcome, it's not solely one or the other. Although measured IQ has been the best correlative outcome determinant humanity has come up with so far and that is highly correlated with genetics.
3. Leftist whites care much more about intra-status games (i.e. their status versus other whites) than they do about status games against other races. So I think this comment misses the point about how the liberal mind operates.
4. If you read some more of Brett Anderson, he comments directly on this point: morality is a Darwinian adaptation to bind groups of people together against their enemies. This is why people view their morality as objectively true and cast out those who disagree, which in tribal times would have meant death; they need their tribe to be united against enemy tribes. People feel their morality and then issue rationalist justifications for their feelings; they don't rationalize their morality from logic.
6. "The issue with neo-Christians is that they adopt a strategy that is most likely to lead them to collective suicide, yet the correct strategy is inherently unknowable." Yes, but it is clear that a correct strategy would lead to an end result that does not involve collective suicide.
8. Is that not what the egalitarian ratchet effect is ultimately about?
9. The way globohomo operates, for whatever reason, is it wants to force its enemies to make the first military move. In Japan's case America cut off Japan from its critically needed oil supplies which was a firm red line for them. In Germany's case Hjalmar Schacht was tasked in 1939 with ending Germany's economic miracle (and Hitler fired him as a result), and Poland started butchering large numbers of Germans. When Germany invaded the SU in Barbarossa the Soviets were only weeks away from launching their own invasion of Germany. This same pattern repeated again in 2022, when globohomo put an army on the doorstep of the Donbass, shelled it relentlessly, then had Zelensky threaten to join NATO and threaten to put nuke's on Russia's border, essentially forcing Russia to attack them. As long as globohomo forces its enemies to make the first military move, it feels like it can portray itself as the defensive victim. I've covered this in the long essay how the Bolsheviks were owned by the Rothschild central bank clan from its embryonic stage, and I will delve into more of these dynamics when I cover the book "Conjuring Hitler" by Guido Giacomo Preparata at some point down the road...
If you don't mind, here's a few thoughts on Preparata's thesis.
IIRC, Preparata posits that the Bank of England calculated the total GDP of England, American and Russia as higher than that of Germany. But it only works if they had known the future configuration of the alliances - something that wars are about to begin with.
England provoked Hitler into attacking Poland - what if Hitler had remained peaceful? Did the bankers' entire plan hinge on Hitler's predictability? Could be, and Hitler could be a spy, but doubtful.
And where does France figure in all of this? Is everyone forgetting what the war started like? The Anglo-French strategy was about utilising their immense resource advantage (not in manpower, however) to win a defensive positional war against Germany. And it was Stalin who tipped the scales in a genius move - by supplying raw materials, he evened out the balance.
Of course, we now know that the Anglo-French defence collapsed in a week. And that Russia's strategy misfired terribly. And that Japan cave the USA a casus belli. And that England never signed a peace treaty. And that Hitler miscalculated and lost. In a word - pure chaos.
P.S. Regarding Stalin - his alliance with Germany gambit does not look as risky if one considers the possibility of an Anglo-German anti-Russian alliance. No idea how feasible that was, but was likely to Stalin.
3. All NPCs care about in-group status. The point I raised is that the issue lies not in "social issues", but in the most basic ally-hostile identification apparatus. Again, the Europeans are going extinct not due to fratricidal wars between capitalists and communists - the Americans have won totally, yet have only empowered foreign nations such as China or Türkiye or India.
4. Way too many disparate arguments. My main point was that the liberals are effectively employing a religious argument - not from science at all (see their shunning the racial science). Whereas your point is confusing, too - is Brett Anderson implying the Christian morality to be innate? The one morality that erases all differences between groups? Not getting it.
6. This is a much deeper point. What we have is scientific data and strategies of survival. Said strategies may or may not be based in scientific fact. The question is whether a strategy with a basis in science can be conceived of, and whether its creation is worth and feasible to pursue. (I would go on a limb and proclaim NS and Juche to be close in spirit to that, but I'm biased.)
9. That's the way of Bismarck vis-à-vis Napoléon III, too. Was Bismarck part of the globohomines? Makes sense for the lazy fat Americans to understand their weakness (pacifist isolationism). That's the genius of Roosevelt, and deserves commendation, not scorn. Also reflects terribly on both Hitler and Hirohito - Japan could have easily bypassed the Philippines to conquer the Ost-India.
"Butchering large numbers of Germans" - Hitler controlled the press in Germany, and had no issue with sending millions of Germans to die, rather childlike of you to think so.
Suvoros-Rezun's thesis is bunk. Zelensky's attack on Donbass is bunk. Putin being a rational agent of a sovereign Russia is bunk.
> "As long as globohomo forces its enemies to make the first military move, it feels like it can portray itself as the defensive victim."
A trillion rupee question - who's the audience? Now you are talking akin to a 9/11 conspiratard. The government has no need to explain itself to the goyim cattle. Sure, back in 1941, Japan helped Roosevelt immensely to start the hostilities. But it's not like admiral Yamamoto was an English spy (correct me if I'm wrong) - Japan simply blundered, there was no way for America to force their hand truly. No overarching control.
(You could repeat about the embargo - but again, either bypass the Philippines, or retreat from China. Or jump into the dragon's teeth - the outcome known.)
P.S. WordPress has banned my blog on its platform. It's all saved on the two archivers, but still unfortunate.
Actually, I have to clarify point 9, it's rather confusing as to what we both mean.
Does America want to force its enemies to blunder? Yes, always useful.
Does America control its enemies like puppets? Depends - Japan no, Iraq maybe, Russia yes.
Does America need its enemies to make blunders? Japan yes (pacifist cuckoldry otherwise), Iraq no (the first Gulf War had had no 9/11), Russia no (controlled demolition anyway).
Does America need to portray itself as a victim purely culturally? Maybe for their élite's fetishist desires, but not to the public, no, the American public will never doubt America's goodness - because again, the control of the media is complete (just like in Hitler's Germany and Juche Korea).
In the end, your banker thesis does warrant my comparing you to a 9/11truther - especially the book by Preparata seems to paint the Japanese as totally blameless - again, most likely due to the conspirologists' main idea of a world government.
Way too idealistic, the main thing that has broken in the Aryan mind is the ally-hostile identification. Even feminism would be of little concern if all non-Whites were exterminated.
The majority of aryans spent most of their time at one anothers throats... non-aryans were not a concern for the most part.
I have given a listen to my fair share of Dawkins and his ilk - they directly appeal to morality as transcending Nature. Isn't it precisely what the so-called "naturalistic fallacy" is about?
Yes, the so-called atheists describe man as an immoral talking monkey... yet somehow he is actually nice because something something egality equality equity nicean christianity.
Very true. As I constantly say, homosexuality positively correlates with the spread of Christianity. The Christcucks of Russia too deny that - but the Muslims of Asia will not.
Aren't the muslims big time boy buggerers? ''Bro it's totally different to western style homosexuality we swear''. The prophet muhammed was described molesting young boys on multiple occasions
The issue with neo-Christians is that they adopt a strategy that is most likely to lead them to collective suicide
They see it as convergence, kalergis brown hued mono-people. Like dead space unitologists worshipping the hive mind... we wuz insects/borg n shit
yet Muslim strategies have turned out to bring more babies - hence tentatively amounting to a success.
The Jewish warrior cult has a number of advantages... chimp out for the platonic theocracy (all non-muslims designated as fair game) and also they view themselves as being the ultimate jew. So no awkward relationship with YHWH' gang unlike the christians.
has been about the ineptitude of the Christian Empire - hence my Chinese intervention fantasies justification.
Chinese intervention? Aren't they just a slave race owned by the rothschilds... There is a theory that america plans to lose a war to china by 2025. The roths can then use china as a proxy to fully enslave whitey ''sorry goy but the evil chinese won :(''
> "non-aryans were not a concern for the most part."
And the Aryans missed the time window when the foreigners could have been liquidated.
> "Aren't the muslims big time boy buggerers?"
Not sure sure, but paederasty is not homosexuality. And no homo marriage.
> "Chinese intervention? Aren't they just a slave race owned by the rothschilds..."
Pinpoint where exactly they are owned? They seem to have a country, a history, some sensible economy and some semblance of national pride. The Chinese were a hair's breadth close to dying, but they lucked out, and succeeded.
I don't get the disparaging remarks against the Mongoloid race, in truth. They retarded themselves in the feudal age. But every single of their exploits since has been successful - Meiji, Mao, Kim Il Sung and Deng.
>And the Aryans missed the time window when the foreigners could have been liquidated.
Is it necessary to kill everyone who is not european? Seems rather excessive, but then again I am a Zeus Protocol enjoyer so I am being hypocritical...
>Not sure sure, but paederasty is not homosexuality.
Wasn't the term paedophilia invented to describe homosexual boylust? That is how they reproduce... Most child abuse prosecutions are for homos.
>Pinpoint where exactly they are owned? They seem to have a country, a history, some sensible economy and some semblance of national pride.
Owned by a rothschild central bank, all they have can be taken away quickly... Their country is more like a slave pen, a big one at that. Schwab sure sings their praises anyway. Their economy was given to them by the lizards who want to deindustrialize the west. Their national pride is fake soviet style shit and they willfully abolished their own history. I like the japanese mongos tho
The mongo advantage is that they have no time for messianic convergence theory, they ain't gots no time fo kalergi and co.
> "Is it necessary to kill everyone who is not european?"
Depends on the objective. If you want to have a clean conscience before your descendants, you make the best future for them, not bring your posterity troubles from your age. Can kill - should kill.
Sure, there is a viewpoint about drastic differences in intelligence prompting indifference on the part of the superior kind (the way humans don't go out of their way to kill ants, or AI humans) - but then, I must admit that races are not different enough to warrant such hubris :))
> "Owned by a rothschild central bank, all they have can be taken away quickly..."
Ah, not this schizophrenia! Taken away... how exactly? By the force of American arms? Or alliances? Both are at play anyway. Yes, geographically, China is vulnerable due to the corpse of the Japanese Empire's being occupied by America. But that's probably not what you mean anyway.
> "Their country is more like a slave pen, a big one at that."
And America is free to suck or kneel before their people of blackness overlords. Great choice. Every country is a "slave pen" by definition. Every president is a slave owner by definition. I'm Mr Zelensky's serf, for one. It's normal. Going against the nature of things is anarchism. (And in reality, such anarchists are all too often impressionable Christcucks, equally in bondage to their delusions.)
> "Their economy was given to them by the lizards who want to deindustrialize the west."
China has been grown by suicidal American Christcucks who are desperately trying to kill themselves. No lizards involved.
> "I like the japanese mongos tho"
Umm, Japan doesn't even exist? It's a fake and gay American colony, living on borrowed time, mercifully bestowed upon them by the idiotic Christcucks? Japan is literally a Christian zoo. A testament to the Aryan race's triumph, and to her suicide.
A big problem with your theory on Paul is that you quote a FAKE liberal translation. Compare to the KIng James Version. The version you use added the words "Sisters" and cuts out the word "flesh". Compare below, you did not quote Paul's true words. Paul was talking about the flesh versus the spirit, the fake translation changes it.
By the way, the early Roman Republic was very egalitarian and had elections.
NIV - FAKE Version You Quoted:
"Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. "
King James Version:
"For [k]you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many [l]noble, are called. "
"Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? Because the 'foolishness' of God is wiser than men; and the 'weakness' of God is stronger than men..." blueletterbible.org/kjv/1co/1/18/
You have me digging up old memories. Back when I was in college I spent a lot of time with liberal intellectuals because I loved to debate. The Russian/Soviet history professor would hold weekly salons at his home and I was an eager participant as the token libertarian who enjoyed a good fight.
In those days, it was I, the libertarian, who was accused of assuming too much human equality. The liberal position was that dumb people would get trampled under a free society so we needed Big Government to protect them. (And these liberal intellectuals read Vonnegut -- and liked it. Yes, there was such a thing as a left-liberal who understood the dangers of going too far.)
I dig up another old memory of having an argument with a relative who had a psychology degree.
I argued that we had some inborn nature, and held up as an example the fact that kittens exhibited
personality differences from before their eyes opened. She countered that humans don't have instincts, only drives. The only immutable human trait was IQ. All else was malleable. She cited a study
where some psychologist raised his son as a girl and got a man who acted as a girl.
Notice! The mainstream position of left-leaning psych majors was a mix of today's alt Right and Westboro Baptist Church.
We are in a crazy mania similar to the Culture Revolution, the French Revolution, or the Salem Witch Trials.
Really fascinating, but I would object to comparing the situation to the Maoist Cultural Revolution, as the high-IQ Chinese case amounted to purging society of any Christian influences. This figures in my hypothesis about Mongoloid superiority, too. Compare the Orientals to the English, the Soviets, the Americans - all of whom literally destroyed their empires.
> "dumb people would get trampled under a free society so we needed Big Government to protect them"
Doesn't this go against the idea of racial desegregation, however? What you are describing is literally Apartheid.
Well, the president who gave us the income tax and the federal reserve was a big time segregationist.
This egalitarian drive of the liberals is a misguided and misunderstood spiritual force. They also weaponize it.. Jesus' teachings were twisted and weaponized by Paul. That humans, any manifestation, are unique and different is extremly obvious and a matter of simple observation. A simple metaphor explains what is going on: Every gold ornament (unless mass produced) is unique and different from other ornaments. Yet, the underlying essence - gold - is the same for all ornaments. The spiritual essence from which we arise and manifest is the same for all humans and other life forms but each manifeststion is unique. That's all Jesus and other self-realized masters ever said. That all people should be equal goes against any natural law or spiritual wisdom. They possibly also confuse the spiritual experience and drive of "being one with the world" with "being equal and the same as the others". People being equal is forcefully achieved by aligning mental conditioning of egoic entities. Being one with the world, including all people, is an awakened state where the individual egoic conditioning is shed and rendered unimportant and living in an acute awareness of the essence of all things is achieved. All religions wesponize these concepts to solidify a certain psychological conditioning (e.g. a Christian, Muslim, Jew) and abuse our inner spiritual longing for essential being by creating this false illusion of belonging to a bigger unifying spiritual group. But they are opposing states of being. Thats why religous people have to "belief" in essence (God) and need to be taught moral rules. In contrast, the truly spiritual person lives in full awareness of the essence and individual actions are part of the natural spontaneous unfolding of the universe and therefore always right. They dont need to be taught a moral code. They teach essential morality through their existence.
Bro you need Jesus. Read the Bible
I did, thanks. How do I "get" Jesus and why do I need him? What does he do for you?