Right wing grifter: Eeeehhh, UFOs are a distraction from Hunter Biden’s penis! Watch my 7000 identical videos about Biden’s corruption and give me money so I don’t have to get a job, neeee!
Right wing grifters who believe UFOs are a distraction are worse than religious nutjobs who believe UFOs are demons.
The only arguments about aliens:
1. If "big brain aliens" (exact quote) were so smart that they can travel across millions of lightyears then they wouldn't be capable of mistakes. They'd make ships that couldn't crash. If crashes exist that proves it isn't aliens.
Answer: We've heard of 12 crashes total that have been recovered, out of how many ships that have visited Earth in the past 80 years? Tens of thousands? Millions? At the end of the day shit is still going to happen. Mistakes happen. A lot of these UAPs seem like drones; they launch from a mothership, fly around doing their own thing, then return. Maybe those cheaply-made drones are most of the crashes, not the crewed ships that are capable of interstellar travel.
2. Why is it that all the UAP sightings are over USA? That proves it's fake because there should be an even distribution of sightings all over the world.
Answer: That's retarded. What about all the sightings over Brazil, and Mexico, and the UK? One of the best (most evidentiary) sightings - the Rendlesham Forest incident - was in Suffolk in the UK.
We don't know most (some deboonkers even claim ALL) of the sightings are over the US, just most of the reports the US government has investigated. Wow! What a surprise! The US government mostly investigates unknown craft violating US airspace! There could be scores of thousands of these things in Antarctica studying global warming and we wouldn't know about it because no one is there to see them.
Also, the US has the Freedom of Information Act and regularly declassifies things all the time. China doesn't. Russia doesn't. Not getting a lot of reports out of places that don't release military secrets regularly to the public is exactly what we would expect if these were real. Rather than disproving UAPs the fact that the majority of sightings investigated by the US government happen over the US is evidence in favor that they are real.
Also also, maybe they're just more interested in the US because US military tech is a full generation ahead of what everyone else on the planet has. Maybe its because the US totally dominates global foreign policy. If you're keeping track of prisoners you want to monitor the head honcho more than the little peons.
Some other thoughts. Humans deliberately crash space probes all the time. These alien vehicles might have been crashed deliberately.
And if these whistle blowers are real then why aren't they being punished like Snowden and others? The government doesn't need to punish them. 30% of people will believe it's fake regardless based on the letter after the name of the guy in power. If someone were to come out and say aliens exist and a Democrat were in power then half the Republicans wouldn't believe it; if it were to happen while a Republican were in power then half the Democrats wouldn't believe it. Add to that the people who wouldn't believe it even if aliens were to land on the White House lawn because their religion says aliens don't exist and you've got the whistle blower basically being ignored or ridiculed by the public and the government doesn't have to do anything.
I'd go so far as to say if Snowden revealed today that the government is spying on us all the time no one would care because people today are not only comfortable with the idea of voluntarily letting governments and private entities spy on them 24/7, they think anyone who believes in privacy is crazy at best, evil at worst. Alien disclosure landed at the time when no one cares and no harm has been done to the US government.
In response to some of my answers above someone countered "nnnnnnn, the aliens allegedly believe in leftist talking points, that proves they're fake! It's a scheme to get us to accept leftism like living in pods and eating bugs!" This person then provided me with a link to an 11 minute video of a right wing grifter doing a reaction video of a 2 minute edited clip from the disclosure hearing interspersed with tons of edgy sarcasm which I didn't watch because I don't watch reaction videos and try to avoid videos that add boring padding in order to exceed a certain minimum length for youtube monitization.
I can think of two good responses to this. First, so what? Let's assume for a moment that it's true that aliens have "leftist" beliefs. So what? Are they not entitled to believe whatever they want? Let's take this a step further. If the aliens allegedly believed in right wing stuff like rugged individualism, eating meat, driving gas guzzling cars, TERFism, burning fossil fuels, hyper-capitalism, and bootstraps, would you believe that disclosure was real or would you come up with another excuse because you reject the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation a priori?
My second response is that the video of the right wing grifter posting a video complaining about UFO disclosure is a perfect self-demonstrating example of my original point.
I don't "know" whether the recent testimony was a psyop or not. I don't know if Klaus Schwab is using ET to create a one world government. I generally don't take people's words at face value when assessing truth claims, choosing to remain optimistic while hedging my bets and holding out for more evidence. I'm not saying this is proof aliens exist, all I'm saying is that the same tired, old objections don't hold any water.
Thursday, August 3, 2023
Friday, February 3, 2023
Communism, Socialism, & Capitalism in the 21st Century
"In a recent issue of Imprimis—Hillsdale College’s digest of liberty—author Michael Rectenwald described the economic goal of the Great Reset as “‘capitalism with Chinese characteristics’—a two-tiered economy, with profitable monopolies and the state on top and socialism for the majority below."
"Draconian government lockdown measures destroyed businesses and eliminated competitors of corporate monopolists. These policies were a dream come true for corporate socialists."
Both of these quotes exist simultaneously within the same email.
Is it socialism for the poor or socialism for the corporate overlords? Doesn't that make it socialism for everyone?
"At the same time, too many young Americans have not been taught what socialism really means."
That's true. No one at Hillsdale, for instance, is learning what socialism is. They're learning socialism is "government does thing" or "capitalist monopolies buy influence in the government through lobbyists and use their money and influence to squash smaller competitors. They're certainly not learning that socialism is "the workers owning the means of production", better known as "what socialism actually is".
"Or the dismal history of its failures wherever it has been tried."
If socialism fails every time it's tried then why does the US have to spend trillions of dollars starting proxy wars all over the planet and embargoing other countries to kill socialism every time?
Now mention China (which is capitalist imperialism per Lenin's definition) or North Korea (which is an explicitly capitalist, hereditary absolute monarchy with an economy 100% geared toward making as much money for the Kim family as possible through legal and illegal means). Also Nazi Germany (which was a kleptocracy where high ranking Nazi officials did all they can to loot the countries they invaded and secure as much for themselves at the expense of fellow party members as possible).
That's why I say I'm not a socialist. Socialism doesn't mean anything. Everyone is a socialist, they're just socialist for different people. The right wants socialism for billionaires and the left wants socialism for the winners of the intersectional oppression olympics. Me, I'm not a socialist, I'm a communist.
You have to be a realist, I think. 1. I'm not going to vote against my own best interests. I'm not going to vote to make some rich asshole richer at my expense. A rising tide does not raise all ships when 99.99% of ships are owned by poor people and are full of holes and are taking on more water than they can pump out. I'm not going to vote to make rich people richer, I'm going to vote to take money from rich people and give it to myself because fuck you, that's why. And 2. with increasing automation and outsourcing we're going to end up with a situation where half the jobs, or more, no longer exist (we're already living in a world where there are more people than jobs, and the existence of bullshit jobs is proof of that) and at that point you have two options, you can either let the majority of the population starve to death while the 20 billionaires who own half the planet's wealth get richer, or you can pay people for existing because there are no jobs. That's it. Automation makes communism inevitable, so I might as well get in on the ground floor.
Let's not forget that while Hillsdale may not take "one penny of government money", Larry Arnn's other business took a $700,000 loan from the government that was later forgiven and he didn't complain and call it socialism and say that it rewarded irresponsible people. That's disgusting hypocrisy and I won't countenance that.
"Draconian government lockdown measures destroyed businesses and eliminated competitors of corporate monopolists. These policies were a dream come true for corporate socialists."
Both of these quotes exist simultaneously within the same email.
Is it socialism for the poor or socialism for the corporate overlords? Doesn't that make it socialism for everyone?
"At the same time, too many young Americans have not been taught what socialism really means."
That's true. No one at Hillsdale, for instance, is learning what socialism is. They're learning socialism is "government does thing" or "capitalist monopolies buy influence in the government through lobbyists and use their money and influence to squash smaller competitors. They're certainly not learning that socialism is "the workers owning the means of production", better known as "what socialism actually is".
"Or the dismal history of its failures wherever it has been tried."
If socialism fails every time it's tried then why does the US have to spend trillions of dollars starting proxy wars all over the planet and embargoing other countries to kill socialism every time?
Now mention China (which is capitalist imperialism per Lenin's definition) or North Korea (which is an explicitly capitalist, hereditary absolute monarchy with an economy 100% geared toward making as much money for the Kim family as possible through legal and illegal means). Also Nazi Germany (which was a kleptocracy where high ranking Nazi officials did all they can to loot the countries they invaded and secure as much for themselves at the expense of fellow party members as possible).
That's why I say I'm not a socialist. Socialism doesn't mean anything. Everyone is a socialist, they're just socialist for different people. The right wants socialism for billionaires and the left wants socialism for the winners of the intersectional oppression olympics. Me, I'm not a socialist, I'm a communist.
You have to be a realist, I think. 1. I'm not going to vote against my own best interests. I'm not going to vote to make some rich asshole richer at my expense. A rising tide does not raise all ships when 99.99% of ships are owned by poor people and are full of holes and are taking on more water than they can pump out. I'm not going to vote to make rich people richer, I'm going to vote to take money from rich people and give it to myself because fuck you, that's why. And 2. with increasing automation and outsourcing we're going to end up with a situation where half the jobs, or more, no longer exist (we're already living in a world where there are more people than jobs, and the existence of bullshit jobs is proof of that) and at that point you have two options, you can either let the majority of the population starve to death while the 20 billionaires who own half the planet's wealth get richer, or you can pay people for existing because there are no jobs. That's it. Automation makes communism inevitable, so I might as well get in on the ground floor.
Let's not forget that while Hillsdale may not take "one penny of government money", Larry Arnn's other business took a $700,000 loan from the government that was later forgiven and he didn't complain and call it socialism and say that it rewarded irresponsible people. That's disgusting hypocrisy and I won't countenance that.
Wednesday, January 25, 2023
Conservativism
There's this channel I unsubscribed to a long time ago called How the World Works or something, with this guy with a crew cut and glasses. He loves to shout "stop" when he's trying to refute an argument. And he apparently hates the environment, or something.
"STOP!!!!1 The Earth is 4000 miles deep, we will never run out of places to bury garbage!"
You do know that it is easier to send a spaceship to Pluto than it is to dig even 10 miles into the Earth?
"STOP!!!!!!!ELEVEN No resource will ever never never ever run out never ever! The Earth is 4000 miles deep, there is an infinite supply of everything we need in the exact form we need it, always!"
You didn't listen to what I just said about trying to dig into the Earth? And you do know that guano (bird shit) was the most valuable resource for about 100 years until it was all mined to nothing?
"STOP!!!!!!!!!!!1111111!!!!! The fucking Earth is four-fucking-thousand MILES DEEP!!!!!11 Future science can solve all problems. Check mate!"
What if it doesn't? What is "future science" anyway? It's that stuff you don't want to invest in because it's not two hundred year old science. I love oil. I'm sitting on oil, typing on oil, looking at pictures projected on oil, in a house lit by oil, and I eat food that exists only because of oil, but maybe we should be investing in things beside oil because it's stupid to rely on only one kind of power source, just in case something bad happens to it?
5 billion people are alive today because of artificial phosphate fertilizers and ground water irrigation. Those phosphates won't last forever, and neither will the ground water, just like the guano. Personally I suspect there's two or more centuries worth of oil that remain to be exploited, but phosphates and ground water are being depleted faster than they can be replenished, and I don't put much hope for future utopianisms. Old methods of agriculture can only supply food for about two billion people, not seven, and it takes millions of years for aquifers to fill with water and caves to fill with shit to be used to grow food for five billion real people who will die if they don't eat anything.
And instead of trying to drill a thousand mile deep hole to bury garbage, maybe we could try to make less of it? Who likes garbage? Okay, there are like three eclectic artists who make sculptures out of tires and shit, but nobody else likes it. Maybe we could make less of what nobody likes or wants or needs.
I don't understand it. Why must everyone who supports conservativism be for the destruction of the environment? I'm pretty sure Rust Lumbar or Glennard Beck wouldn't want someone dumping trash in their back yard, so why do they think it's okay to dump trash in a bear's back yard? Why would anyone be proud of driving a grossly inefficient gas-guzzler? That's literally money you're throwing away just to piss people off over how shitty a car you own. If your are spending lots of money just to piss people off that makes you an asshole.
"STOP!!!!1 The Earth is 4000 miles deep, we will never run out of places to bury garbage!"
You do know that it is easier to send a spaceship to Pluto than it is to dig even 10 miles into the Earth?
"STOP!!!!!!!ELEVEN No resource will ever never never ever run out never ever! The Earth is 4000 miles deep, there is an infinite supply of everything we need in the exact form we need it, always!"
You didn't listen to what I just said about trying to dig into the Earth? And you do know that guano (bird shit) was the most valuable resource for about 100 years until it was all mined to nothing?
"STOP!!!!!!!!!!!1111111!!!!! The fucking Earth is four-fucking-thousand MILES DEEP!!!!!11 Future science can solve all problems. Check mate!"
What if it doesn't? What is "future science" anyway? It's that stuff you don't want to invest in because it's not two hundred year old science. I love oil. I'm sitting on oil, typing on oil, looking at pictures projected on oil, in a house lit by oil, and I eat food that exists only because of oil, but maybe we should be investing in things beside oil because it's stupid to rely on only one kind of power source, just in case something bad happens to it?
5 billion people are alive today because of artificial phosphate fertilizers and ground water irrigation. Those phosphates won't last forever, and neither will the ground water, just like the guano. Personally I suspect there's two or more centuries worth of oil that remain to be exploited, but phosphates and ground water are being depleted faster than they can be replenished, and I don't put much hope for future utopianisms. Old methods of agriculture can only supply food for about two billion people, not seven, and it takes millions of years for aquifers to fill with water and caves to fill with shit to be used to grow food for five billion real people who will die if they don't eat anything.
And instead of trying to drill a thousand mile deep hole to bury garbage, maybe we could try to make less of it? Who likes garbage? Okay, there are like three eclectic artists who make sculptures out of tires and shit, but nobody else likes it. Maybe we could make less of what nobody likes or wants or needs.
I don't understand it. Why must everyone who supports conservativism be for the destruction of the environment? I'm pretty sure Rust Lumbar or Glennard Beck wouldn't want someone dumping trash in their back yard, so why do they think it's okay to dump trash in a bear's back yard? Why would anyone be proud of driving a grossly inefficient gas-guzzler? That's literally money you're throwing away just to piss people off over how shitty a car you own. If your are spending lots of money just to piss people off that makes you an asshole.
Why The Internet Sucks
According to Blogger, which I haven't used since 2020, my test page, which just contained the word "test" to see if it works, was "unpublished" because it's spam.
An otherwise blank page with the word "test" to test whether a feature works or not, which was never intended for the public to see, is not spam. It can't be spam if no one but me ever sees it. I just wanted to see what the page layout looked like.
If it makes you feel any better go ahead and "unpublish" whatever you want, even pages that were set to private because they served no other function than stuff I never intended anyone to see.
And this is why the Internet sucks. It's sucked for a long time, at least since Google bought Youtube and monetized it. The Internet has been going downhill ever since then. Super anal robots with inflexible definitions of pointless rules, and mods trying to push their own corporate agendas, just ruin everything for the rest of us. And the only solution you ever hear is "Just build your own Internet, brah!" And every time someone does it gets gobbled up by corporations, or removed by their government proxies, and we're back to the same old crappy Internet we had only now it's worse because new changes have to be made to make everything less fun to punish people from ever trying to create their own Internet ever again. If anyone challenges the power structure then everyone must be punished.
An otherwise blank page with the word "test" to test whether a feature works or not, which was never intended for the public to see, is not spam. It can't be spam if no one but me ever sees it. I just wanted to see what the page layout looked like.
If it makes you feel any better go ahead and "unpublish" whatever you want, even pages that were set to private because they served no other function than stuff I never intended anyone to see.
And this is why the Internet sucks. It's sucked for a long time, at least since Google bought Youtube and monetized it. The Internet has been going downhill ever since then. Super anal robots with inflexible definitions of pointless rules, and mods trying to push their own corporate agendas, just ruin everything for the rest of us. And the only solution you ever hear is "Just build your own Internet, brah!" And every time someone does it gets gobbled up by corporations, or removed by their government proxies, and we're back to the same old crappy Internet we had only now it's worse because new changes have to be made to make everything less fun to punish people from ever trying to create their own Internet ever again. If anyone challenges the power structure then everyone must be punished.
Wednesday, March 25, 2020
Trump, Save Me from Your Followers
The past couple days makes me think that maybe Hitlery Clinton was right and half of Trump supporters really are deplorable.
I still think Trump himself is a decent guy. He is the only presidential* candidate I've ever wanted to vote FOR (as opposed to always voting against someone), and I'm glad he did become President, as I've wanted him to be President since 1999. That much is true. If I do vote in November I without question will vote for Trump again because the alternative is unthinkable.
Still, I've never been a boot-licker. He has done some great things, and I still think he's the only good President we've had since JFK, but I think the reason he's been successful is because he basically throws shit against the wall and sees what sticks. He changes his mind every day. Naturally, when you've had 7000 ideas it's no surprise that 3500 were good just by dumb luck. He burns through staff members faster than the company I work for, and that's saying something. He hires "The best person in the entire world" and then fires the person in a week because they all turn out to 1. be shit or 2. contradict him on his latest pet idea.
I've called him out on a number of shit moves he's made, mostly bombing Syria in response to bullshit chemical attacks and his eliminating certain environmental protections (NOT global warming, which is complete and utter bullshit, but stuff to do with national parks).
And while he has improved the economy a little bit, it's not as good as when I was a kid before Clinton sold our factories to China. Most of the improvement is just in the stock market, which was pumped with 10,000 points of artificial liquidity by the Fed to make it look like the best thing ever, "The strongest economy the world has ever seen." Nixon did the same thing. Nixon made it look like he fixed the economy by dramatically increasing the debt. It got him re-elected in a 49 state landslide, but it took decades for the US to recover, and when it finally did Clinton killed it again.
And now this quarter-assed approach to dealing with the Coronavirus pandemic is by far his worst move yet. Still, that's not the bad part. As some people have pointed out, Trump really has no power here. He cannot coerce states to lift their own quarantines, so when he says "America will go to work again in a week" he has no authority to enforce that. It's just bullshit rhetoric meant to inspire people. Individual governors can tell him to go pound sand and there's nothing he can do because of the Tenth Amendment† (unless it's to spread progressivism, then SCOTUS is willing to abrogate the Constitution and conjure up laws out of whole cloth‡).
No, the bad part is not Trump or anything he's done, but his followers. They seem to be almost as assaholic as leftists. Almost.
They really seem to be fucking stupid. They seem to be some sort of Team America parody of extreme reckless jingoism. In the span of two weeks Alex Jones went from saying Coronavirus would signal the death knell of globalism to now saying it is a globalist hoax designed to institute a one-world police state. He went from talking about how the disease was so horrifically deadly that China was burning tens of thousands of bodies, turning the rain over Japan black from soot, to saying that seasonal flu is tens or even hundreds of times deadlier.
Every one of them seems to have the Team America theme playing on a continuous loop at full blast. MURICA! FUCK YEAH! COMING AGAIN TO SAVE THE MOTHERFUCKING DAY, YEAH! MURICA! FUCK YEAH! FREEDOM IS THE ONLY WAY!
“Coronavirus be a globohomo§ plot! I gots to buy me some more guns! 15 ain't enough!”
Are you Sarah fucking Palin or something? How many guns do you need? It's just like the people who hoard enough TP to build a fort.
“Muricans ain't scared of no flu bug! Coronavirus is a hoax by the Democraps to usher in Agenda 21! Literally NO ONE has died from Coronavirus! 8 BILLION people die every year from flu. 9 BILLION! We're going back to work! Murica! Fuck yeah!”
“If you criticize any aspect of anything Trump ever says you're a commie lib prog bundle of sticks!|”
Trump supporters, conservatives, and LOLbertarians are just as bad as Bernouts and progressives. They do engage in the purity spiral just as well, only instead of kicking out anyone who isn't woke enough they kick out anyone who isn't jingoistic or contemptuous of the environment or worker's rights enough.
No group seems to be capable of understanding nuance or context. No group seems capable of tolerating difference of opinion. You either agree 100% or BTFO. It's almost as if humans really are shit-flinging apes that got lucky like the atheists believe. Humans are just intelligent enough to be dangerous and invent bio-weapons, H-bombs, and AI-controlled social credit scores, but not intelligent enough not to be assholes to each other.
I can't fucking stand these people who say “Real Americans want to go back to work!” So literally anyone who disagrees with you, no matter the reason, is not a real American? It's not just that they are uninformed or mistaken, or maybe just have a different opinion, no, they are literally an enemy of the state?
“Real Americans LOVE working!” Really? I've never met one. Everyone I've ever worked with has hated working, they just do it because they have to. That's why they have to pay you to do it, because you wouldn't do it for free because it's shit. Even people who I've known who are workaholics admit they hate working, they just want to get it done with so they can accrue enough money through savings and investments to retire as soon as possible. The only people who seem to enjoy their jobs are the Youtubers who make six figures through ad revenue or e-begging, or selfish retirees who already have enough money to live off of but go back to work out of boredom, and in so doing steal jobs from younger, less credentialed people.
I almost want to sit out the election in November because 1. I live in New Jersey so my vote literally doesn't matter because the state would vote for Pol Pot or Jeffrey Dahmer if he had a “D” after his name, and 2. because I don't want to contribute to the victory of Trump's assaholic fans. I don't want to make them happy.
Please, dear President Trump, if you really are God Emperor, save me from your asshole fans.
* There were a few NJ senate candidates I did really like and vote for in the primaries, but none of them got the nomination, and I still think Alan Keyes is the smartest person to run for President and not get nominated.
† The Tenth Amendment to the US constitution says that the states have the sole and absolute authority to decide matters that are not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution.
‡ Whole cloth is the metaphysical substance from which blatant lies are made.
§ Globohomo = Globalized + Homogenized. I had to look it up too because I thought it had to do with gays.
| Not sure if big tech will allow me to use the other word, better to be safe.
I still think Trump himself is a decent guy. He is the only presidential* candidate I've ever wanted to vote FOR (as opposed to always voting against someone), and I'm glad he did become President, as I've wanted him to be President since 1999. That much is true. If I do vote in November I without question will vote for Trump again because the alternative is unthinkable.
Still, I've never been a boot-licker. He has done some great things, and I still think he's the only good President we've had since JFK, but I think the reason he's been successful is because he basically throws shit against the wall and sees what sticks. He changes his mind every day. Naturally, when you've had 7000 ideas it's no surprise that 3500 were good just by dumb luck. He burns through staff members faster than the company I work for, and that's saying something. He hires "The best person in the entire world" and then fires the person in a week because they all turn out to 1. be shit or 2. contradict him on his latest pet idea.
I've called him out on a number of shit moves he's made, mostly bombing Syria in response to bullshit chemical attacks and his eliminating certain environmental protections (NOT global warming, which is complete and utter bullshit, but stuff to do with national parks).
And while he has improved the economy a little bit, it's not as good as when I was a kid before Clinton sold our factories to China. Most of the improvement is just in the stock market, which was pumped with 10,000 points of artificial liquidity by the Fed to make it look like the best thing ever, "The strongest economy the world has ever seen." Nixon did the same thing. Nixon made it look like he fixed the economy by dramatically increasing the debt. It got him re-elected in a 49 state landslide, but it took decades for the US to recover, and when it finally did Clinton killed it again.
And now this quarter-assed approach to dealing with the Coronavirus pandemic is by far his worst move yet. Still, that's not the bad part. As some people have pointed out, Trump really has no power here. He cannot coerce states to lift their own quarantines, so when he says "America will go to work again in a week" he has no authority to enforce that. It's just bullshit rhetoric meant to inspire people. Individual governors can tell him to go pound sand and there's nothing he can do because of the Tenth Amendment† (unless it's to spread progressivism, then SCOTUS is willing to abrogate the Constitution and conjure up laws out of whole cloth‡).
No, the bad part is not Trump or anything he's done, but his followers. They seem to be almost as assaholic as leftists. Almost.
They really seem to be fucking stupid. They seem to be some sort of Team America parody of extreme reckless jingoism. In the span of two weeks Alex Jones went from saying Coronavirus would signal the death knell of globalism to now saying it is a globalist hoax designed to institute a one-world police state. He went from talking about how the disease was so horrifically deadly that China was burning tens of thousands of bodies, turning the rain over Japan black from soot, to saying that seasonal flu is tens or even hundreds of times deadlier.
Every one of them seems to have the Team America theme playing on a continuous loop at full blast. MURICA! FUCK YEAH! COMING AGAIN TO SAVE THE MOTHERFUCKING DAY, YEAH! MURICA! FUCK YEAH! FREEDOM IS THE ONLY WAY!
“Coronavirus be a globohomo§ plot! I gots to buy me some more guns! 15 ain't enough!”
Are you Sarah fucking Palin or something? How many guns do you need? It's just like the people who hoard enough TP to build a fort.
“Muricans ain't scared of no flu bug! Coronavirus is a hoax by the Democraps to usher in Agenda 21! Literally NO ONE has died from Coronavirus! 8 BILLION people die every year from flu. 9 BILLION! We're going back to work! Murica! Fuck yeah!”
“If you criticize any aspect of anything Trump ever says you're a commie lib prog bundle of sticks!|”
Trump supporters, conservatives, and LOLbertarians are just as bad as Bernouts and progressives. They do engage in the purity spiral just as well, only instead of kicking out anyone who isn't woke enough they kick out anyone who isn't jingoistic or contemptuous of the environment or worker's rights enough.
No group seems to be capable of understanding nuance or context. No group seems capable of tolerating difference of opinion. You either agree 100% or BTFO. It's almost as if humans really are shit-flinging apes that got lucky like the atheists believe. Humans are just intelligent enough to be dangerous and invent bio-weapons, H-bombs, and AI-controlled social credit scores, but not intelligent enough not to be assholes to each other.
I can't fucking stand these people who say “Real Americans want to go back to work!” So literally anyone who disagrees with you, no matter the reason, is not a real American? It's not just that they are uninformed or mistaken, or maybe just have a different opinion, no, they are literally an enemy of the state?
“Real Americans LOVE working!” Really? I've never met one. Everyone I've ever worked with has hated working, they just do it because they have to. That's why they have to pay you to do it, because you wouldn't do it for free because it's shit. Even people who I've known who are workaholics admit they hate working, they just want to get it done with so they can accrue enough money through savings and investments to retire as soon as possible. The only people who seem to enjoy their jobs are the Youtubers who make six figures through ad revenue or e-begging, or selfish retirees who already have enough money to live off of but go back to work out of boredom, and in so doing steal jobs from younger, less credentialed people.
I almost want to sit out the election in November because 1. I live in New Jersey so my vote literally doesn't matter because the state would vote for Pol Pot or Jeffrey Dahmer if he had a “D” after his name, and 2. because I don't want to contribute to the victory of Trump's assaholic fans. I don't want to make them happy.
Please, dear President Trump, if you really are God Emperor, save me from your asshole fans.
* There were a few NJ senate candidates I did really like and vote for in the primaries, but none of them got the nomination, and I still think Alan Keyes is the smartest person to run for President and not get nominated.
† The Tenth Amendment to the US constitution says that the states have the sole and absolute authority to decide matters that are not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution.
‡ Whole cloth is the metaphysical substance from which blatant lies are made.
§ Globohomo = Globalized + Homogenized. I had to look it up too because I thought it had to do with gays.
| Not sure if big tech will allow me to use the other word, better to be safe.
Thursday, February 20, 2020
What is History?
I've been keeping a diary since 2012, with some other bits written down earlier than that starting in 2006 (The Urban Mystic itself was started as a diary of my own mystical experiences). In preparation for writing a 365 day reflection book on various events (talking about great figures in the history of philosophy and mysticism and events like the Last Supper and the Resurrection) I've been looking back on those diaries and I was struck by just how much my recollections of events have changed over the years.
In a sense my life began in 2012 (and in another sense it began in 2006 when I was born again). Before then, in the great years like 2011, 2010, and others, I have no records, just vague memories, and, looking back on existing memories, I can see how much memory deviates from reality. Most of it is just forgetting stuff, but some of it is remembering things out of order. Who knows what really happened at that point.
It makes you wonder how accurate history really is. The oldest records of Alexander the Great are from 300 years after he died. The earliest Christian writings are from 40 years after the Resurrection, which is about as accurate as you can get until modern times. We now have primary sources and the printing press, which has allowed us to make unlimited copies to assure that the accounts of history are preserved.
We have cameras and video and now everyone is journalist. Everyone has a camera, everyone has Internet access, everyone can make unlimited copies of live events and protect them for posterity.
No longer are we reliant on official sources of news and information, now we can see events as they happen in real time and form our own opinions on events.
And yet there is the downside of this too. Technology is rapidly advancing toward the point where people can take audio and video samples and create perfect digital replicas of real people and places and create fake events that are indistinguishable from the real thing (unless you have access to the metadata). “Deep fake” they call it. We're not there yet, but we're getting there quickly.
Then there is the censorship. The corporate press and elite tech robber barons are frightened of a world where they are not the sole arbiter of truth. If a person with a smart phone can reach more people than a stuffed shirt with hair plugs and a journalism degree whose making seven figures then who needs the stuffed shirt? The gate keepers are becoming irrelevant and that frightens them, so they've turned to two tools that all tyrants employ when faced with this situation: censorship and propaganda (physical violence happens when these methods fail). Anyone who questions the official narrative is labeled as a bigot or a heretic and their material is removed from the polite web. Dangerous individuals (Facebook literally removed several accounts of people they said were “dangerous” like Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones) are deplatformed, unpersoned, and slandered. They are tainted and rendered unemployable. Banks won't touch them. It is no longer necessary to execute political undesirables as they had in the Twentieth Century, now you can make sure undesirables can't get a job so they become homeless and starve and descend into suicidal despair.
Then there is the condition of living in what is called “post truth”. Pilate asked “What is truth?” Today this question is answered with another question, “Whose truth?” Different people have different truths. People can witness the same objective events and experience them as totally different subjective realities. Beliefs about reality have begun to superseded objective reality itself. Understanding this allows one to manipulate others perceptions for fun and profit. It makes writing history a nightmare, but it's great for trolling people on Twitter.
Take the shampeachment for instance. Tens of millions of people can watch the shampeachment as a great crusade against the most evil being who has ever or will ever live. They will see Trump extorting the President of Ukraine to investigate Biden's son in an attempt to destroy Biden's own presidential campaign years before he even decided to run for office, back when he said he was not going to run. Even though President Zelensky himself admits nothing of the sort happened. But we can't believe his own testimony, it's clearly Stockholm syndrome! And, of course, even though we have Biden admit on video that he deliberately extorted Ukraine to fire an ambassador in exchange for aid money, committing the very crime President Trump was accused of, that never happened either. It's a deep fake created by the “vast right-wing conspiracy”.
At the same time tens of millions of people see the shampeachment as nothing more than a purely partisan political shitshow that was an attempted soft coup that had been in the planning stages since before Trump had even been inaugurated.
Tens of millions of people are living in totally opposite alternate realities that happen to occupy the same physical space but different psychosocial spaces.
Wikipedia, a Chinese-controlled far-leftist propaganda machine, has proposed solutions to the post truth world (and the newspeak equivalents in parentheses):
1. Have the tech oligarchs design algorithms to filter out opinions that run counter to the official narrative (“filter out fake news”)
2. Have bought and paid for priests of the new secular religion make public appearances to spread propaganda because their livelihoods literally depend on it (“greater visibility of scientists and the scientific community”)
3. Government crackdowns on any dissenters through deplatforming and unpersoning, and, if you're a Bernie Bro, gulags, which “weren't all that bad.” (“stronger government involvement in combating fake news”)
4. Make people rat one another out like they did in the Soviet Union (“scrutinizing fake news”).
Roger Scruton has his own theories about post truth, so does Ken Wilber, but that's a topic for another day.
We are living in times that are both exciting and frightening. Things are changing so fast, much faster even than in the 2010s when I wrote about the World Gone Mad and how society was racing toward fundamental changes without even stopping to consider the potential consequences, that it strains the mind to even keep up. The human brain might not be large enough to handle so much information all at once, and might not be able to develop the psychological, social, economic, or political structures such a rapidly changing world requires. We may very well reach the hypothesized singularity, where technological growth trends toward infinity, or we may be reaching Calhoun's behavioral sink and the collapse of society as we reach the point where economic growth can no longer be sustained. And with things like post truth and deep fakes who knows if we'll even realize what's going on when we do reach that point.
In a sense my life began in 2012 (and in another sense it began in 2006 when I was born again). Before then, in the great years like 2011, 2010, and others, I have no records, just vague memories, and, looking back on existing memories, I can see how much memory deviates from reality. Most of it is just forgetting stuff, but some of it is remembering things out of order. Who knows what really happened at that point.
It makes you wonder how accurate history really is. The oldest records of Alexander the Great are from 300 years after he died. The earliest Christian writings are from 40 years after the Resurrection, which is about as accurate as you can get until modern times. We now have primary sources and the printing press, which has allowed us to make unlimited copies to assure that the accounts of history are preserved.
We have cameras and video and now everyone is journalist. Everyone has a camera, everyone has Internet access, everyone can make unlimited copies of live events and protect them for posterity.
No longer are we reliant on official sources of news and information, now we can see events as they happen in real time and form our own opinions on events.
And yet there is the downside of this too. Technology is rapidly advancing toward the point where people can take audio and video samples and create perfect digital replicas of real people and places and create fake events that are indistinguishable from the real thing (unless you have access to the metadata). “Deep fake” they call it. We're not there yet, but we're getting there quickly.
Then there is the censorship. The corporate press and elite tech robber barons are frightened of a world where they are not the sole arbiter of truth. If a person with a smart phone can reach more people than a stuffed shirt with hair plugs and a journalism degree whose making seven figures then who needs the stuffed shirt? The gate keepers are becoming irrelevant and that frightens them, so they've turned to two tools that all tyrants employ when faced with this situation: censorship and propaganda (physical violence happens when these methods fail). Anyone who questions the official narrative is labeled as a bigot or a heretic and their material is removed from the polite web. Dangerous individuals (Facebook literally removed several accounts of people they said were “dangerous” like Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones) are deplatformed, unpersoned, and slandered. They are tainted and rendered unemployable. Banks won't touch them. It is no longer necessary to execute political undesirables as they had in the Twentieth Century, now you can make sure undesirables can't get a job so they become homeless and starve and descend into suicidal despair.
Then there is the condition of living in what is called “post truth”. Pilate asked “What is truth?” Today this question is answered with another question, “Whose truth?” Different people have different truths. People can witness the same objective events and experience them as totally different subjective realities. Beliefs about reality have begun to superseded objective reality itself. Understanding this allows one to manipulate others perceptions for fun and profit. It makes writing history a nightmare, but it's great for trolling people on Twitter.
Take the shampeachment for instance. Tens of millions of people can watch the shampeachment as a great crusade against the most evil being who has ever or will ever live. They will see Trump extorting the President of Ukraine to investigate Biden's son in an attempt to destroy Biden's own presidential campaign years before he even decided to run for office, back when he said he was not going to run. Even though President Zelensky himself admits nothing of the sort happened. But we can't believe his own testimony, it's clearly Stockholm syndrome! And, of course, even though we have Biden admit on video that he deliberately extorted Ukraine to fire an ambassador in exchange for aid money, committing the very crime President Trump was accused of, that never happened either. It's a deep fake created by the “vast right-wing conspiracy”.
At the same time tens of millions of people see the shampeachment as nothing more than a purely partisan political shitshow that was an attempted soft coup that had been in the planning stages since before Trump had even been inaugurated.
Tens of millions of people are living in totally opposite alternate realities that happen to occupy the same physical space but different psychosocial spaces.
Wikipedia, a Chinese-controlled far-leftist propaganda machine, has proposed solutions to the post truth world (and the newspeak equivalents in parentheses):
1. Have the tech oligarchs design algorithms to filter out opinions that run counter to the official narrative (“filter out fake news”)
2. Have bought and paid for priests of the new secular religion make public appearances to spread propaganda because their livelihoods literally depend on it (“greater visibility of scientists and the scientific community”)
3. Government crackdowns on any dissenters through deplatforming and unpersoning, and, if you're a Bernie Bro, gulags, which “weren't all that bad.” (“stronger government involvement in combating fake news”)
4. Make people rat one another out like they did in the Soviet Union (“scrutinizing fake news”).
Roger Scruton has his own theories about post truth, so does Ken Wilber, but that's a topic for another day.
We are living in times that are both exciting and frightening. Things are changing so fast, much faster even than in the 2010s when I wrote about the World Gone Mad and how society was racing toward fundamental changes without even stopping to consider the potential consequences, that it strains the mind to even keep up. The human brain might not be large enough to handle so much information all at once, and might not be able to develop the psychological, social, economic, or political structures such a rapidly changing world requires. We may very well reach the hypothesized singularity, where technological growth trends toward infinity, or we may be reaching Calhoun's behavioral sink and the collapse of society as we reach the point where economic growth can no longer be sustained. And with things like post truth and deep fakes who knows if we'll even realize what's going on when we do reach that point.
Wednesday, December 4, 2019
Circumcision Is Barbarism
This ties in somewhat with the anti-porn people from last month. Circumcision is barbarism that was invented by sick assholes who thought it would eliminate masturbation. This is because half of the skin of the penis is removed that conveniently contains most of the nerve endings. The most sensitive part of a circumcised penis is the scar tissue. There were never any health benefits, real or imagined, the entire purpose from the very beginning was to eliminate sexual pleasure.
"I'm glad I was circumcised."
Bullshit. You were minutes old when you were circumcised, you never experienced being uncircumcised, therefore you cannot possibly say you prefer one state over the other because you've never experienced the other state.
This isn't like saying "I'm glad I wasn't shot." You don't need to be shot to know that not being shot is preferable to being shot. You don't need to have plague to know that not having plague is better than having plague.
That's a huge problem I have with spiritualists, who think we come to Earth to experience suffering, because you don't know anything until you experience it. Bullshit. I don't need to experience getting shot to know I don't want to get shot. I can see from the experiences of others that I don't want to get shot, I don't need to personally experience it. The spiritualist world view turns the universe into a cosmic form of Jackass, where we incarnate to do dumb shit and get killed because omnipotent spirits are bored masochists. Apparently, according to the spiritualists, the most enjoyable thing anyone can possibly do is get sick and die before the age of five, because that's the life of half of all the humans have ever lived. HALF OF EVERYONE WHO EVER LIVED, 50 BILLION PEOPLE, DIED BEFORE AGE FIVE. I refuse to believe in a world view where omnipotent spirits find that to be the most useful way to spend their time.
Circumcision is just the opposite of this. We can learn from the experiences of others, from the men with sexual dysfunction as a result of circumcision, and from the experiences of intact men, that not being circumcised is not equivalent to getting shot or getting the plague, that there is the possibility (and I believe definite reality) that not being circumcised is preferable to being circumcised. And it pisses me off that I'll never get to experience that. It pisses me off, supremely, that I had an important organ removed without my consent shortly after birth. That strikes me as an unforgivable form of child abuse.
C. S. Lewis said something like this in his book on the non-problem of evil. Some people say "It would be better for me if I had never existed." To which he replied, "In what sense 'for me'? How would I, if I did not exist, profit from not existing?" The statement is meaningless, since if you don't exist then there's no you to benefit from not existing. The statement is nothing but a string of words put together that does not refer to a real subject, like a square circle or a rock so heavy God cannot lift it. These strings of words do not constitute valid statements since the words nullify each other.
"I'm glad I was circumcised."
Bullshit. You were minutes old when you were circumcised, you never experienced being uncircumcised, therefore you cannot possibly say you prefer one state over the other because you've never experienced the other state.
This isn't like saying "I'm glad I wasn't shot." You don't need to be shot to know that not being shot is preferable to being shot. You don't need to have plague to know that not having plague is better than having plague.
That's a huge problem I have with spiritualists, who think we come to Earth to experience suffering, because you don't know anything until you experience it. Bullshit. I don't need to experience getting shot to know I don't want to get shot. I can see from the experiences of others that I don't want to get shot, I don't need to personally experience it. The spiritualist world view turns the universe into a cosmic form of Jackass, where we incarnate to do dumb shit and get killed because omnipotent spirits are bored masochists. Apparently, according to the spiritualists, the most enjoyable thing anyone can possibly do is get sick and die before the age of five, because that's the life of half of all the humans have ever lived. HALF OF EVERYONE WHO EVER LIVED, 50 BILLION PEOPLE, DIED BEFORE AGE FIVE. I refuse to believe in a world view where omnipotent spirits find that to be the most useful way to spend their time.
Circumcision is just the opposite of this. We can learn from the experiences of others, from the men with sexual dysfunction as a result of circumcision, and from the experiences of intact men, that not being circumcised is not equivalent to getting shot or getting the plague, that there is the possibility (and I believe definite reality) that not being circumcised is preferable to being circumcised. And it pisses me off that I'll never get to experience that. It pisses me off, supremely, that I had an important organ removed without my consent shortly after birth. That strikes me as an unforgivable form of child abuse.
C. S. Lewis said something like this in his book on the non-problem of evil. Some people say "It would be better for me if I had never existed." To which he replied, "In what sense 'for me'? How would I, if I did not exist, profit from not existing?" The statement is meaningless, since if you don't exist then there's no you to benefit from not existing. The statement is nothing but a string of words put together that does not refer to a real subject, like a square circle or a rock so heavy God cannot lift it. These strings of words do not constitute valid statements since the words nullify each other.
The Protestants Invented Witch Trials
The Catholic church a thousand years ago said that witches do not exist, that people who believe that they are witches are delusional, and that since witches and witchcraft does not exist, you cannot prosecute someone as a witch, hold witch trials, burn people at the stake as witches, because it is impossible to commit a crime that does not exist.
Then, Martin Luther nailed his feces to the door of a church and decided to create a perversion of Christianity based on ignorance and the inversion of Christ's actual teachings, and in so doing brought belief in witches into the world. Protestants burned witches out of the same love of ignorance that fuels ISIS (and to steal the land and other property from unpopular people through trumped up charges).
Then, Martin Luther nailed his feces to the door of a church and decided to create a perversion of Christianity based on ignorance and the inversion of Christ's actual teachings, and in so doing brought belief in witches into the world. Protestants burned witches out of the same love of ignorance that fuels ISIS (and to steal the land and other property from unpopular people through trumped up charges).
Saturday, November 30, 2019
The End of Porn Month 2019
November is anti-porn month, so I decided to write about porn all month long for 7 reasons:
1. To boost traffic to the site (it's worked).
2. The anti-porn people are obnoxious. They are just as bad, if not worse, than the vegans. How do you know if someone is a vegan? They never shut up about it, that's how. They're always so smug and self righteous, as all stupid people who have a little bit of knowledge think they are.
3. The anti-porn people are creepy and they are clearly a cult, and I've written about cults before.
4. The anti-porn people are hypocrites who only focus on men using porn and don't care one tiny iota about women using porn.
5. The anti-porn people fundamentally confuse cause and effect. Feminism and increasing numbers of women in the workforce is destroying relationships between men and women, and since everyone needs an outlet for the sex drive that is what is driving men toward porn. Porn is the symptom of the destroyed relationship between men and women, it is not the cause of the destroyed relationship between men and women. Restore traditional gender roles and 99% of porn eliminates itself.
6. The anti-porn people may be wrong. They present no data, only doctrine. At least show me the studies that demonstrate that the brain can be rewired to such a dramatic extent as the anti-porn people allege. If that was possible I would think it would have huge implications elsewhere in the world. Instead of traditional schooling, for example, we could just use some sort of knowledge porn to make children smarter, condensing 12 years of schooling into a single year. We could have war porn to make super soldiers, surgery porn to make perfect surgeons, pilot porn to make perfect pilots incapable of human error. We could have prison porn to rehabilitate gangsters, thieves, and murderers. We could rewire the brain using therapy porn to get cripples to walk again. The possibilities are endless.
And instead of trying to save humanity through exploring these techniques, the anti-porn people want to end the experiment into rewiring the brain, just like the anti-drug people don't want us to experiment with extremely safe substances like psilocybin and marijuana, but do want to keep extremely dangerous substances like tobacco and alcohol perfectly legal.
7. Even if the anti-porn people are right about #6, how is that necessarily bad? How is it bad removing men with an addictive personality from the gene pool? I would think that keeping certain weak and pathetic men from breeding would be better for the species.
This was certainly an interesting topic, and because I've been very busy I've in no way exhausted everything there is to say about porn, so you can expect more in the future, along with more usual subjects.
1. To boost traffic to the site (it's worked).
2. The anti-porn people are obnoxious. They are just as bad, if not worse, than the vegans. How do you know if someone is a vegan? They never shut up about it, that's how. They're always so smug and self righteous, as all stupid people who have a little bit of knowledge think they are.
3. The anti-porn people are creepy and they are clearly a cult, and I've written about cults before.
4. The anti-porn people are hypocrites who only focus on men using porn and don't care one tiny iota about women using porn.
5. The anti-porn people fundamentally confuse cause and effect. Feminism and increasing numbers of women in the workforce is destroying relationships between men and women, and since everyone needs an outlet for the sex drive that is what is driving men toward porn. Porn is the symptom of the destroyed relationship between men and women, it is not the cause of the destroyed relationship between men and women. Restore traditional gender roles and 99% of porn eliminates itself.
6. The anti-porn people may be wrong. They present no data, only doctrine. At least show me the studies that demonstrate that the brain can be rewired to such a dramatic extent as the anti-porn people allege. If that was possible I would think it would have huge implications elsewhere in the world. Instead of traditional schooling, for example, we could just use some sort of knowledge porn to make children smarter, condensing 12 years of schooling into a single year. We could have war porn to make super soldiers, surgery porn to make perfect surgeons, pilot porn to make perfect pilots incapable of human error. We could have prison porn to rehabilitate gangsters, thieves, and murderers. We could rewire the brain using therapy porn to get cripples to walk again. The possibilities are endless.
And instead of trying to save humanity through exploring these techniques, the anti-porn people want to end the experiment into rewiring the brain, just like the anti-drug people don't want us to experiment with extremely safe substances like psilocybin and marijuana, but do want to keep extremely dangerous substances like tobacco and alcohol perfectly legal.
7. Even if the anti-porn people are right about #6, how is that necessarily bad? How is it bad removing men with an addictive personality from the gene pool? I would think that keeping certain weak and pathetic men from breeding would be better for the species.
This was certainly an interesting topic, and because I've been very busy I've in no way exhausted everything there is to say about porn, so you can expect more in the future, along with more usual subjects.
Friday, November 29, 2019
Porn Is Free Speech
"We either all hang together or we all hang separately."
- Ben Franklin
- Ben Franklin
Ben Franklin, who had sex with like five or six thousand women in his lifetime, was absolutely right when he said that.
Franklin was also quite familiar with porn, which existed in the 18th century, by the way. Since the photograph hadn't been invented yet, maybe, people had to use drawings, but what was acceptable for mainstream publication were very different than what they ware today. Porn could be printed in newspapers and no one gave a flying crap about that at the time. Many of these porn drawings depicted old Ben and his innumerable dalliances with everything that moved. One such image (that I unfortunately cannot find online) depicts Ben in standard porn pose, holding a woman sideways with one leg over his shoulder, and penetrating her with his massive cock. You could buy this on any street corner in Philadelphia.
"The things I do for my country."
- Also Ben Franklin, referring to seducing French aristocrats' wives and mistresses to secure the alliance that won the Revolutionary War
I'll discuss more on the history of porn later in the month, and the much freer attitude toward porn the founders had, and how radical leftists in the late 19th century invented the idea that masturbation was unhealthy as a means of controlling men, but for now let us focus on Franklin's first quote.
If the British attack each colony individually then they can defeat the colonies individually with their superior numbers, weapons, and training. However, if the colonies join together they can become a much more powerful force than the British would be willing to muster, and this new United States could win its independence. Only then, when the common enemy is defeated, should all the ancillary disputes colonies be debated.
Unity is strength. It's written into the motto of the United States: E Pluribus Unum, "Out of many, one." It's the rally cry behind Gengis Khan's rise to power, that a single arrow can be broken, but a bundle of arrows tied together cannot. It's what Maximus told his fellow gladiators, "Whatever comes through that door, we stand a better chance of surviving if we fight it together." Unity is strength, because many people can be in more places, fight more enemies, come up with more ideas, and accomplish more work than any single individual can.
Conquerors throughout history have employed the tactic of divide and rule to break any unity, because an individual can be dominated a lot more easily than a group. Napoleon famously brought his army to bear against a divided enemy, defeating each individual group in turn, and in so doing defeating a much larger enemy by creating several smaller enemies to fight one at a time.
This is a tactic we see being used in politics all the time. The elite have got us divided by race, sex, and all sorts of other bullshit to keep us fighting each other so we don't band together and overthrow them. I've spoken to people at length about this during the last election, people on the "left" and never-trumpers on the "right" and they all said "NO! Orange man bad! REEEEEEEEE!!!!!!! He will nut inside us!"
Now, after that rather long introduction, let's get on to the meat of the issue.
Paypal has banned Pornhub, which, according to this chart, is the 38th biggest website, and the second biggest porn site on the planet, so it's a pretty big deal (Paypal is number 68 on the same chart). Of course the anti-porn people are braying loudly over this, offering up ululations to their deified egos. Conservatives similarly chant "Good, get rid of the degeneracy!" and then go back home and beat off to men piledriving each other because they're all so deeply in the closet that they're in Narnia. Meanwhile the leftists can't decide whether porn makes women into livestock (they don't give a wet bucket of shit about men, who are just prop cocks), and the ones who call it "sex work" and praise it like certain ancient peoples praised temple prostitutes.
Of course all of these same people who cheer the deplatforming of their enemies hiss and complain when they are the ones who are being censored and deplatformed. As Styx alludes to in the above video, the vast majority of the anti-censorship people are hypocrites (just as I said a decade ago about the anti-war people).
It shouldn't matter whether it is the almighty government or "muh private corporation", it's about one thing and one thing alone: control. Authoritarians love to control people, and controlling access to private economic transactions and free speech (as well as the right to self defense, which they hate as well) is the ultimate form of control. You don't need to round people up in a concentration camp like the three million people China has incarcerated, or shoot people in the heads, like China does with its mobile execution vans. All you have to do is take away a person's right to earn money and that person will simply starve to death, or else turn to a life of crime, giving you a pretext for imprisonment.
Remember, liberals get the bullet too. No matter how far left you are (or how far right, when the pendulum inevitably swings in the opposite direction), you are never far enough. You are never pure enough. Any group, Antifa, the MRA, Alt-Right, they always enter purity spirals and eat themselves. They always crucify members who are not pure enough, and hate these not pure enough even more than they hate their supposed enemies. We are seeing in this election a growing number of people who think Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist who used to vacation in the Soviet Union and has lived in an actual communist village, is not far left enough.
And now we have a handful of big tech oligarchs, rich beyond the dreams of avarice, who are controlling what we can think, and say, and do, who can have a job, why can buy and sell goods and services. We have an authoritarian control grid whose power will soon be so great that it can never be challenged. And the only way to defeat them is together. Any attack on the free speech of anyone must be treated as an attack against everyone, whether you like the person or not. It doesn't matter if the elite are trying to censor Alex Jones, porn, Dave Rubin, Hasan Piker, that Nazi guy they made a movie about, anyone you don't like, if we don't stand together against censorship and deplatforming we will all surely hang separately. A tech oligarch or government powerful enough to give you everything you want is also powerful enough to take from you everything you have when, not if, when the pendulum of society inevitably swings in the opposite direction. The proper thing to do is to allow the free and open exchange of ideas, not to censor anyone. Let people reach their own conclusions. Try to be more persuasive and win people over to your side. Working together is the only way we can continue to live in a free and open society.
Friday, November 8, 2019
Martin Goldberg on Porn
Because I'm not bored as hell by the topic of porn just yet, here's the first of two videos from Martin Goldberg, Mr. Economic Invincibility himself. This one deals with porn directly. Here he presents a rational, balanced perspective and actually brings up one of the few good points on the subject, that porn can be an excuse for some men to not take risks with women.
He also brings up what he admits is a weaker argument, that porn may be better than anything you can expect in real life.
Now, I don't usually speak from experience, because I tend to lean on the more theoretical side, but given the subject and the wonder and mystery any potential readers may have, from what I've seen in my day, I honestly never thought the chicks in porn videos looked all that great (and the amateurs are just that, regular off the street people who you do see every day, if you run in those circles of chicks who have lots of tattoos and daddy issues). Furthermore, speaking, as it were, about what people seem to be referring to almost exclusively, of the whole dick entering various parts of a woman type videos, it always seemed laughably stupid and awkward to me, like the stupidest possible ways of having sex just to make sure everything is on camera. That just never did anything for me.
Also, and he doesn't bring it up in the video but other people have brought it up, the whole serial escalation argument. You first see a picture of a tit, then you get bored of tits (as if that was even possible) so now you have to start watching like finger bang videos, then get bored of that and you have to start watching bukkake, then you get bored of that and have to start watching real videos of real life rape, and then you're bored of that and have to go out and commit rape yourself, then it escalates even further and all of a sudden you're Jeffrey Dahmer. All I have to say is fuck off, escalation. You can smoke a whole forest of weed and never have the desire to go to crack, and then from crack to meth, and then from meth you're hanging yourself in your closet like Robin Williams. Escalation is bullshit, weed is not a gateway drug, and Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.
He also brings up what he admits is a weaker argument, that porn may be better than anything you can expect in real life.
Now, I don't usually speak from experience, because I tend to lean on the more theoretical side, but given the subject and the wonder and mystery any potential readers may have, from what I've seen in my day, I honestly never thought the chicks in porn videos looked all that great (and the amateurs are just that, regular off the street people who you do see every day, if you run in those circles of chicks who have lots of tattoos and daddy issues). Furthermore, speaking, as it were, about what people seem to be referring to almost exclusively, of the whole dick entering various parts of a woman type videos, it always seemed laughably stupid and awkward to me, like the stupidest possible ways of having sex just to make sure everything is on camera. That just never did anything for me.
Also, and he doesn't bring it up in the video but other people have brought it up, the whole serial escalation argument. You first see a picture of a tit, then you get bored of tits (as if that was even possible) so now you have to start watching like finger bang videos, then get bored of that and you have to start watching bukkake, then you get bored of that and have to start watching real videos of real life rape, and then you're bored of that and have to go out and commit rape yourself, then it escalates even further and all of a sudden you're Jeffrey Dahmer. All I have to say is fuck off, escalation. You can smoke a whole forest of weed and never have the desire to go to crack, and then from crack to meth, and then from meth you're hanging yourself in your closet like Robin Williams. Escalation is bullshit, weed is not a gateway drug, and Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
The Cult of Anti-Porn
It's November, so now I have to watch all the quasi-religious freaks try to look special by denouncing porn.
Let me start out by saying that this has nothing to do with my or your opinion of porn, this is just how utterly creepy the anti-porn people are and how they all say the exact same thing, like none of them have ever had an original thought.
I've been writing The Urban Mystic since February 2006, 13 years, and have never once talked about porn, that I know of. It just never crossed my mind. I never saw it as anything compelling to write about. But what I have written about a lot is cults, and these anti-porn male feminists are a cult, and just like Scientology, Mormonism, Jehova's Witnessism, Islam, Neo-Nazism, "We Wuz Kangz", they're all fucking insane.
And let me just expand on that last bit, while I have explained before in great detail why Mormonism is a cult, and is decidedly anti-Christian, and is demonstrably false, I still think that most Mormons are good people, which is something that I cannot say about other cults. Even though Mormonism is a cult, and most Mormons are crazy and wrong, it is a cult that by and large makes people more friendly.
So, after almost a decade and a half, here is a very, very brief introduction on the cult of anti-porn.
The anti-porn people miss the fundamental reality that they are confusing cause and effect.
Porn is not a cause, porn is an effect.
The cause is feminism destroying healthy relationships between men and women. I'll get into that in more detail later in the month, but for now just run with it and see where it leads.
Without a woman with which to fulfill his biological imperative, a man is going to execute that base level programming alone. Plain and simple. Unless you're one of those 1 in a million who is able to become a monk and sublimate sexual energy, you absolutely will not and cannot (and should not) overrule three billion years of evolutionary hardwiring.
It's not some Jewish conspiracy to eliminate white people. White people are the army that keeps Jews from being exterminated, it profits them not to eliminate their defenders when half the world's Jews won't even touch a gun. That's the problem I have with the Neo-Nazis who try to say everything bad that exists is the deliberate action of the Jews to exterminate white people, is that it's self-contradictory. If the Jews, who supposedly run the world, are so smart to create this global conspiracy to wipe out whites and replace them with blacks and Arabs, then surely those same Jews would be smart enough to realize that blacks and Arabs would do what they've always done, which is turn Jews into third-class dhimmi serfs should white people stop defending their Jewish overlords. Any Jewish conspiracy to eliminate white people would really be cutting off their rather prominent noses to spite their face. It makes no sense.
Most porn today is actually produced by amateurs, people who are exhibitionists, but even the corporate stuff is war profiteering. A gulf exists between men and women that was created by anti-male laws and social customs that have been created over the past 50 years, and pornographers are just taking advantage of that situation. Just as someone selling toilet paper for a million dollars a sheet in Venezuela didn't create the shitty economy in the country, the pornographers didn't create the anti-male climate we are living in, they are just taking advantage of it.
Eliminate feminism and porn vanishes all on its own as the market naturally dries up.
The anti-porn people also are hypocrites, in that they focus exclusively on getting men to stop using porn and don't give a toss about the billions of dollars women spend each year on porn. The most profitable franchise of the past decade has been a pornographic rape fantasy for women. But the anti-porn people be like "Women can hump pillows all they want as long as men don't let one single sperm come in contact with the air!" They are holding men and women to different standards.
They also think that 100% of all porn contains dicks. They think 100% of all porn is videos of men fucking women, with dicks front and center. Wasn't it just last year, or maybe even earlier this year, where the most common search results of major porn sites was released for every state? What did those results reveal? First of all, that women watch porn too, and second, that the number one search for both men and women in all 50 states was "lesbian". Most people watch porn that has no men in it, therefore the whole argument that you're cucking yourself for watching porn goes out the window if you're only looking at women.
Is Playboy not porn? Is pictures of naked women not porn? Are cam girls stripping and masturbating for money and attention not porn? The anti-porn people seem to have a paraphilia for videos of dicks, so much so that they hallucinate the existence of dicks where dicks do not exist. Either that or they are really afraid of their own latent homoerotic desires.
The anti-porn people are young, impressionable, dick-obsessed, male feminists who are living in a utopian delusion who seek to score with women and gain status among men by showing off how they manifest superpowers while calling other men out as being lesser beings in a quasi-moralistic crusade that is pure hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Let me start out by saying that this has nothing to do with my or your opinion of porn, this is just how utterly creepy the anti-porn people are and how they all say the exact same thing, like none of them have ever had an original thought.
I've been writing The Urban Mystic since February 2006, 13 years, and have never once talked about porn, that I know of. It just never crossed my mind. I never saw it as anything compelling to write about. But what I have written about a lot is cults, and these anti-porn male feminists are a cult, and just like Scientology, Mormonism, Jehova's Witnessism, Islam, Neo-Nazism, "We Wuz Kangz", they're all fucking insane.
And let me just expand on that last bit, while I have explained before in great detail why Mormonism is a cult, and is decidedly anti-Christian, and is demonstrably false, I still think that most Mormons are good people, which is something that I cannot say about other cults. Even though Mormonism is a cult, and most Mormons are crazy and wrong, it is a cult that by and large makes people more friendly.
So, after almost a decade and a half, here is a very, very brief introduction on the cult of anti-porn.
The anti-porn people miss the fundamental reality that they are confusing cause and effect.
Porn is not a cause, porn is an effect.
The cause is feminism destroying healthy relationships between men and women. I'll get into that in more detail later in the month, but for now just run with it and see where it leads.
Without a woman with which to fulfill his biological imperative, a man is going to execute that base level programming alone. Plain and simple. Unless you're one of those 1 in a million who is able to become a monk and sublimate sexual energy, you absolutely will not and cannot (and should not) overrule three billion years of evolutionary hardwiring.
It's not some Jewish conspiracy to eliminate white people. White people are the army that keeps Jews from being exterminated, it profits them not to eliminate their defenders when half the world's Jews won't even touch a gun. That's the problem I have with the Neo-Nazis who try to say everything bad that exists is the deliberate action of the Jews to exterminate white people, is that it's self-contradictory. If the Jews, who supposedly run the world, are so smart to create this global conspiracy to wipe out whites and replace them with blacks and Arabs, then surely those same Jews would be smart enough to realize that blacks and Arabs would do what they've always done, which is turn Jews into third-class dhimmi serfs should white people stop defending their Jewish overlords. Any Jewish conspiracy to eliminate white people would really be cutting off their rather prominent noses to spite their face. It makes no sense.
Most porn today is actually produced by amateurs, people who are exhibitionists, but even the corporate stuff is war profiteering. A gulf exists between men and women that was created by anti-male laws and social customs that have been created over the past 50 years, and pornographers are just taking advantage of that situation. Just as someone selling toilet paper for a million dollars a sheet in Venezuela didn't create the shitty economy in the country, the pornographers didn't create the anti-male climate we are living in, they are just taking advantage of it.
Eliminate feminism and porn vanishes all on its own as the market naturally dries up.
The anti-porn people also are hypocrites, in that they focus exclusively on getting men to stop using porn and don't give a toss about the billions of dollars women spend each year on porn. The most profitable franchise of the past decade has been a pornographic rape fantasy for women. But the anti-porn people be like "Women can hump pillows all they want as long as men don't let one single sperm come in contact with the air!" They are holding men and women to different standards.
They also think that 100% of all porn contains dicks. They think 100% of all porn is videos of men fucking women, with dicks front and center. Wasn't it just last year, or maybe even earlier this year, where the most common search results of major porn sites was released for every state? What did those results reveal? First of all, that women watch porn too, and second, that the number one search for both men and women in all 50 states was "lesbian". Most people watch porn that has no men in it, therefore the whole argument that you're cucking yourself for watching porn goes out the window if you're only looking at women.
Is Playboy not porn? Is pictures of naked women not porn? Are cam girls stripping and masturbating for money and attention not porn? The anti-porn people seem to have a paraphilia for videos of dicks, so much so that they hallucinate the existence of dicks where dicks do not exist. Either that or they are really afraid of their own latent homoerotic desires.
The anti-porn people are young, impressionable, dick-obsessed, male feminists who are living in a utopian delusion who seek to score with women and gain status among men by showing off how they manifest superpowers while calling other men out as being lesser beings in a quasi-moralistic crusade that is pure hypocrisy, plain and simple.
The Non-Problem of Porn
It's November, so the anti-porn cultists are coming out of their basements, with those disgusting, stained mattresses they live on because of all the nocturnal emissions they have from never getting it off, and they have to bray in the streets about how they stopped nutting for fifteen hours and have now become motherfucking immortal and can now see through time and fly.
Here is the only honest video on the subject ever created, not surprisingly by Styx.
Here is the only honest video on the subject ever created, not surprisingly by Styx.
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
A Very Brief Introduction to Political Groups
We hear a lot about the "political spectrum" and different groups like the alt-right, Antifa, and good old fashioned conservatives and liberals, but what does all that really mean, really? Using a decade and a half of first-hand experience in "the biz" I break it all down for you in the most urban way possible.
Mainstream Republicans want to bend over before leftists and accept the throbbing cock of defeat in order to look like nice people. Love me, Daddy.
Conservatives want you to die in the gutter for not pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps while they smoke cigars on a golf course and drive around in gas guzzling cars to show off how much money they can waste.
Liberals want you to live in the gutter in a deluxe cardboard box with free heroin and designated shitting streets while they party on Epstein's rape island.
LOLbertarians want the same thing as liberals but with legal weed and naked fat guy dancers.
AnCaps (sometimes called "libertarians") want you to die, but not in the gutter because that's private property. Fuck you.
AnComs (sometimes called "Antifa") want to throw piss bottles at you and LARP at being revolutionaries but will scatter to the winds if you fight back.
White (German) Supremeists (sometimes called "black pill") don't care what you do, but they want all white people to move to Montana and secede from the United States to make white people even more powerless and irrelevant because they're fucking retarded. They worship Adolf Hitler, who murdered more white people than anyone else in history. They also what to replace Christianity with either German paganism or state atheism.
Black Supremeists want to turn America into Detroit and make white people pay reparations and become slaves because "We wuz kangz and shiet!"
"Democratic" Socialists want free shit provided for by printing money because they're all trust fund babies who don't know how economics works.They also think the Nordic countries are socialist because they can't tell the difference between socialism and hyper-capitalism coupled with a welfare state.
Progressives have NO endgame. They constantly move the goalposts because they need a reason to be offended all the time.
Mainstream Republicans want to bend over before leftists and accept the throbbing cock of defeat in order to look like nice people. Love me, Daddy.
Conservatives want you to die in the gutter for not pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps while they smoke cigars on a golf course and drive around in gas guzzling cars to show off how much money they can waste.
Liberals want you to live in the gutter in a deluxe cardboard box with free heroin and designated shitting streets while they party on Epstein's rape island.
LOLbertarians want the same thing as liberals but with legal weed and naked fat guy dancers.
AnCaps (sometimes called "libertarians") want you to die, but not in the gutter because that's private property. Fuck you.
AnComs (sometimes called "Antifa") want to throw piss bottles at you and LARP at being revolutionaries but will scatter to the winds if you fight back.
White (German) Supremeists (sometimes called "black pill") don't care what you do, but they want all white people to move to Montana and secede from the United States to make white people even more powerless and irrelevant because they're fucking retarded. They worship Adolf Hitler, who murdered more white people than anyone else in history. They also what to replace Christianity with either German paganism or state atheism.
Black Supremeists want to turn America into Detroit and make white people pay reparations and become slaves because "We wuz kangz and shiet!"
"Democratic" Socialists want free shit provided for by printing money because they're all trust fund babies who don't know how economics works.They also think the Nordic countries are socialist because they can't tell the difference between socialism and hyper-capitalism coupled with a welfare state.
Progressives have NO endgame. They constantly move the goalposts because they need a reason to be offended all the time.
Saturday, September 7, 2019
Was Thanos Right?
If you look at history you start to get the "evil" idea that Thanos was right. Every time the population is halved, or at least a significant part of it is eliminated, the standard of living of the survivors increases.
The Black Death (which was not bubonic plague, it was a hemorrhagic disease, which plague is not*) turned Europe from a continent where lords owned the people as slaves to one where workers had the power to demand improved standards of living and allowed for the creation, for the first time ever, of a middle class. Social mobility was created. Had millions of people not died and the social order of the world not been overturned those opportunities would never have arisen.
After 100 million people died in the Second World War America, as the only industrial nation that was not destroyed, saw the greatest boom economy in human history. For the first time ever a man with no education, no training, and no connections could demand, and get, a job that could support a wife, three kids, two cars, a house, a month of vacation, and retire in 30 years and live off a full pension. It was the first time ever that young adults could venture off on their own and not have to live in multi-generational families just to make ends meet (something still tragically seen as normal in our crippled economy). Had millions of people not died and nations not bombed to oblivion that opportunity would have never arisen.
Even in the Soviet Union, with that man-made catastrophe rent by Stalin that saw the murder of 20 million people, actually dramatically improved the lives of the survivors. An entire nation of peasant slaves was turned into an industrial super power with a standard of living half that of the United States in only 70 years. The survivors did have their lives improved. That would never have happened under the Tsar where everyone lived as chattel in an agrarian shithole.
History seems to attest to the fact that there really is a finite amount of resources, and if you eliminate half the people everyone not only gets double the share, but those double shares are worth even more.
"But why not just double the resources?"
Because things that are not earned have no value. Low IQ people take resources given to them by guilty Westerners and use those resources to quadruple their populations. Doubling the resources just exacerbates the problem by incentivizing bad behavior.
Everyone wanted silver, which was rare and highly valued. Wars were waged over silver. But when Spain discovered Potosi, the largest silver deposits in the world, and the supply of silver increased dramatically, all of a sudden silver became worthless because everyone had it and the Spanish economy collapsed.
Everyone wants to be a trillionaire, but when Zimbabwe made everyone a trillionaire the money became worthless. If everyone has a trillion dollars then no one will work, no one will pave roads, or build houses, or bake bread, or raise chickens. Why work when you're rich? But then, since no one is working, all those ordinary goods become extremely valuable and money becomes worthless.
Increasing the supply of a given resource devalues it. Increasing the supply of food, for example, would cause the excess food to rot and be wasted, or would incentivize people to have more kids who would demand more food, which would require resources to be doubled again to meet the new demand.
Any perceived increase in standard of living brought on by increasing resources is an illusion predicated on credit. Extraction of ground water and phosphate have allowed for an increase of food production which has allowed 6 billion extra people to be born in excess of the carrying capacity of the planet. The problem is ground water and phosphate take thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years to become replenished. Meanwhile they are exhausted in generations. Saudi Arabia totally depleted its ground water supply in a couple decades. There are places in America where the ground has subsided 70 feet or more because of the extraction of aquifers that took millennia to fill up. Whole "guano islands" were mined below the waves to extract phosphate for fertilizer and for making explosives and have been depleted in the past century.
It's a simple calculus: extraction of these resources allows for the increase of the population because most people have no concept of a future beyond their own death (or maybe the deaths of their children), an increase in population leads to an escalating pace of resource extraction beyond the point where those resources are being replenished, which leads to a population crash.
Now, it's true that places like Japan and Europe, especially Eastern Europe, have seen declining populations, but Africa's population is exploding. Within the next 50 years 1 in 3 people on the planet will be African if this trend continues. Sustainable agriculture can only support 2 billion people, and there will be at least 4 billion Africans who will not work, who will not invent new particle physics, who will not build rockets to colonize Mars. 4 billion more mouths to be fed by an increasingly smaller pool of Western workers who are being replaced in their home countries.
The long-term survival of the human species requires colonization of other planets. That cannot happen if dumb Westerners keep giving aid to countries in Africa and across the third world where people breed like crazy. There is a finite supply of resources, and those resources must be apportioned toward advancing the survival of the human species over the long-term, not increasing the population dramatically in the here and now.
The long-term survival of the human species requires the immediate end of foreign aid across the board.
“But wouldn't the population just grow back if half of it is eliminated?”
No, not if you eliminate the half that breeds beyond the replacement level.
You're committing the fallacy of assuming humans are fungible, like bacteria. If you eliminate half of a colony of bacteria the colony will just continue to grow until all the resources are consumed. If you double the resources for the colony to grow on the colony will continue to grow until all the resources are consumed.
If you double the resources on Earth some humans will continue to breed until all the resources are consumed. If you remove the half that is breeding beyond replacement level then those resources can be recycled, as they always have been.
Resources are recycled. There are water cycles, phosphate cycles, nitrogen cycles, carbon cycles. Humans use resources, die, and the dead bodies decompose and return the elements to the Earth to be reused. If population is kept stable, at the carrying capacity, then resources can be recycled endlessly. The world will not become overrun with Japanese people, ever. Japanese people are not exhausting resources to fuel their bottomless thirst for expansion, like in China or Saudi Arabia, or Chad. If the wasteful half is eliminated, or simply not allowed to expand, then the stable, sustainable half can reuse the world's resources endlessly until the Sun dies.
*The disease that killed most of the people in the Americas when the Spanish arrived is called "Cocoliztli". It has the same symptoms as the Black Death: high fever, profuse bleeding, large dark spots - especially around the neck and genitals, bloody diarrhea, bloody vomiting, severe body pains, delusions, discoloration and necrosis of the skin. Death was usually in 3-5 days after onset of symptoms, an extremely short amount of time. We don't know the incubation/latency period is, there are very few diseases that kill that quickly. People with Ebola usually linger for 21 days or so. Cholera can kill quicker, but that's from fluid loss.
Coupled with the fact that the disease is spread primarily from person to person, and was devastating in areas that were virtually rodent free while sparing other areas that were teaming with rats, indicates that some unknown viral hemorrhagic fever was the worst killer of humans of all time. It wiped out 75% of Eurasia and 90% of North and South America. We are all the survivors of some extremely virulent disease that nearly brought humanity to extinction within a span of 300 years.
The Black Death (which was not bubonic plague, it was a hemorrhagic disease, which plague is not*) turned Europe from a continent where lords owned the people as slaves to one where workers had the power to demand improved standards of living and allowed for the creation, for the first time ever, of a middle class. Social mobility was created. Had millions of people not died and the social order of the world not been overturned those opportunities would never have arisen.
After 100 million people died in the Second World War America, as the only industrial nation that was not destroyed, saw the greatest boom economy in human history. For the first time ever a man with no education, no training, and no connections could demand, and get, a job that could support a wife, three kids, two cars, a house, a month of vacation, and retire in 30 years and live off a full pension. It was the first time ever that young adults could venture off on their own and not have to live in multi-generational families just to make ends meet (something still tragically seen as normal in our crippled economy). Had millions of people not died and nations not bombed to oblivion that opportunity would have never arisen.
Even in the Soviet Union, with that man-made catastrophe rent by Stalin that saw the murder of 20 million people, actually dramatically improved the lives of the survivors. An entire nation of peasant slaves was turned into an industrial super power with a standard of living half that of the United States in only 70 years. The survivors did have their lives improved. That would never have happened under the Tsar where everyone lived as chattel in an agrarian shithole.
History seems to attest to the fact that there really is a finite amount of resources, and if you eliminate half the people everyone not only gets double the share, but those double shares are worth even more.
"But why not just double the resources?"
Because things that are not earned have no value. Low IQ people take resources given to them by guilty Westerners and use those resources to quadruple their populations. Doubling the resources just exacerbates the problem by incentivizing bad behavior.
Everyone wanted silver, which was rare and highly valued. Wars were waged over silver. But when Spain discovered Potosi, the largest silver deposits in the world, and the supply of silver increased dramatically, all of a sudden silver became worthless because everyone had it and the Spanish economy collapsed.
Everyone wants to be a trillionaire, but when Zimbabwe made everyone a trillionaire the money became worthless. If everyone has a trillion dollars then no one will work, no one will pave roads, or build houses, or bake bread, or raise chickens. Why work when you're rich? But then, since no one is working, all those ordinary goods become extremely valuable and money becomes worthless.
Increasing the supply of a given resource devalues it. Increasing the supply of food, for example, would cause the excess food to rot and be wasted, or would incentivize people to have more kids who would demand more food, which would require resources to be doubled again to meet the new demand.
Any perceived increase in standard of living brought on by increasing resources is an illusion predicated on credit. Extraction of ground water and phosphate have allowed for an increase of food production which has allowed 6 billion extra people to be born in excess of the carrying capacity of the planet. The problem is ground water and phosphate take thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years to become replenished. Meanwhile they are exhausted in generations. Saudi Arabia totally depleted its ground water supply in a couple decades. There are places in America where the ground has subsided 70 feet or more because of the extraction of aquifers that took millennia to fill up. Whole "guano islands" were mined below the waves to extract phosphate for fertilizer and for making explosives and have been depleted in the past century.
It's a simple calculus: extraction of these resources allows for the increase of the population because most people have no concept of a future beyond their own death (or maybe the deaths of their children), an increase in population leads to an escalating pace of resource extraction beyond the point where those resources are being replenished, which leads to a population crash.
Now, it's true that places like Japan and Europe, especially Eastern Europe, have seen declining populations, but Africa's population is exploding. Within the next 50 years 1 in 3 people on the planet will be African if this trend continues. Sustainable agriculture can only support 2 billion people, and there will be at least 4 billion Africans who will not work, who will not invent new particle physics, who will not build rockets to colonize Mars. 4 billion more mouths to be fed by an increasingly smaller pool of Western workers who are being replaced in their home countries.
The long-term survival of the human species requires colonization of other planets. That cannot happen if dumb Westerners keep giving aid to countries in Africa and across the third world where people breed like crazy. There is a finite supply of resources, and those resources must be apportioned toward advancing the survival of the human species over the long-term, not increasing the population dramatically in the here and now.
The long-term survival of the human species requires the immediate end of foreign aid across the board.
“But wouldn't the population just grow back if half of it is eliminated?”
No, not if you eliminate the half that breeds beyond the replacement level.
You're committing the fallacy of assuming humans are fungible, like bacteria. If you eliminate half of a colony of bacteria the colony will just continue to grow until all the resources are consumed. If you double the resources for the colony to grow on the colony will continue to grow until all the resources are consumed.
If you double the resources on Earth some humans will continue to breed until all the resources are consumed. If you remove the half that is breeding beyond replacement level then those resources can be recycled, as they always have been.
Resources are recycled. There are water cycles, phosphate cycles, nitrogen cycles, carbon cycles. Humans use resources, die, and the dead bodies decompose and return the elements to the Earth to be reused. If population is kept stable, at the carrying capacity, then resources can be recycled endlessly. The world will not become overrun with Japanese people, ever. Japanese people are not exhausting resources to fuel their bottomless thirst for expansion, like in China or Saudi Arabia, or Chad. If the wasteful half is eliminated, or simply not allowed to expand, then the stable, sustainable half can reuse the world's resources endlessly until the Sun dies.
*The disease that killed most of the people in the Americas when the Spanish arrived is called "Cocoliztli". It has the same symptoms as the Black Death: high fever, profuse bleeding, large dark spots - especially around the neck and genitals, bloody diarrhea, bloody vomiting, severe body pains, delusions, discoloration and necrosis of the skin. Death was usually in 3-5 days after onset of symptoms, an extremely short amount of time. We don't know the incubation/latency period is, there are very few diseases that kill that quickly. People with Ebola usually linger for 21 days or so. Cholera can kill quicker, but that's from fluid loss.
Coupled with the fact that the disease is spread primarily from person to person, and was devastating in areas that were virtually rodent free while sparing other areas that were teaming with rats, indicates that some unknown viral hemorrhagic fever was the worst killer of humans of all time. It wiped out 75% of Eurasia and 90% of North and South America. We are all the survivors of some extremely virulent disease that nearly brought humanity to extinction within a span of 300 years.
Monday, September 2, 2019
Nothing Happened Before the Big Bang, Inflation Is Not Past Eternal, And All Systems of Knowledge Are Incomplete
There's been a recent push to change the definition of "big bang", just as with changing the definition of countless other words to suit the will of dialectical materialism. This past month I've come across a new video† by a very popular youtube channel and an article on a popular website talk about "what happened before the big bang" and "why the big bang wasn't the start of everything".
Just as "nothing" no longer means absolutely nothing, it means "the ground state of the quantum vacuum", now the "big bang" isn't what it always has meant, when time, space, matter, and energy all came into existence from absolutely nothing, now it means "inflation", which happened 10^-32 seconds AFTER what was previously defined as the big bang. This is a devious little reach around to claim that "stuff happened before the big bang", just like calling "the ground state of the quantum vacuum" "nothing" allows you to say that ""science" (dialectical materialism) can explain how the universe was created from nothing without God."
Eternal inflation, the idea that the inflation that sped up the expansion of the early universe didnt' stop, it still continues in other regions of space beyond our cosmic horizon, spawning new bubble universes forever, was the first to go. Some thought inflation was eternal into the past too, but in 2003 Vilenkin and Alan Guth ran the calculations on Hubble's Constant and found that it doesn't work. Inflation may continue forever into the future, but it had to have a beginning in the past.
Next came the big bounce, the idea that after a long time, a trillion years or so, expansion slows and stops, eventually reversing until everything flys back into a single point called the Big Crunch. Then the shock of impact of everything on everything starts a new Big Bang, and the cycle continues forever. Unfortunately, disorder increases with time, so each new universe must be more disordered than the one that birthed it. If the cycle had been going on forever disorder would be infinite and the universe would be completely featureless. Since there's stuff in the universe the cycles couldn't have gone on forever. Some people then suggested that the universe just gets bigger with each bounce, so the disorder spreads out more so no one notices it (like in the M-Brane ekpyrotic model and possibly whatever the hell Penrose's new idea is - no one seems to understand his Aeons of time model, within the physics community or anywhere). But if the whole thing is getting bigger it had to start somewhere really really small, maximally small, and that means a finite beginning.
There's also an idea from the 1930s called the cosmic egg or primeval atom, where yes, there was a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, but the thing that banged was an uber-dense subatomic thing that existed forever until it got tired of existing as a tiny little particle and exploded. However, Vilenkin and a graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that quantum instability would have led to the egg's collapse after a finite time. The crack (the Big Bang) had to happen before the egg collapsed into oblivion so it couldn't have existed forever, even if it existed for a really, really long time before the Big Bang.
Here are several prior pieces I've written on why inflation cannot be past eternal:
Balking Hawking Part 1
Balking Hawking Part 2
Georg Cantor's Infinities (Part Two)
Balking Someone
Balking Hawking Part 3: In The Beginning
Make no mistake, when people say "science says" they mean "dialectical materialism says". Science does not say anything, science does not prove anything, individual scientists may say things, but science is not a catalogue of facts, science is a process.
I've made a video many years ago back when I used to make videos called "First Principle Anecdota"* that everything you know, and every conceivable system for attaining knowledge (that is, all forms of epistemology) necessarily relies on what are called "axioms" or "first principles", which are assumptions which must be taken as given but can never be proven true. At its base you can NEVER know anything about the world with absolute certainty. Everything must be based on things which you assume to be true but can never prove. Based on those assumptions you can create a system to demonstrate facts with arbitrary certainty, but the certainty of those facts is always arbitrary and is based entirely on your assumptions.
I've probably talked to hundreds of people about this and no one seems to get it. Not the "praise science" crowd who believe in dialectical materialism. It's like people can get arbitrarily smart, but their smartness is always asymptotic to the level of intelligence needed to realize that all knowledge is built upon unprovable assumptions.
Ordinary people, who are just smart enough to be dangerous, are easy to trick by these linguistic gymnastics like redefining words. You redefine "big bang" and "nothing" and get disaffected teenagers into becoming atheists. That's how they get you. Meanwhile the geniuses (technically the plural is genii), the real hard-nosed intellectual atheists who really look into the subjects like Anthony Flew, turn to belief in God because they realize that the universe and life are far too complex to be explainable by any series of coincidences.
I said a few years ago, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, "How do you change a cow into a horse? You redefine the word "horse" to include cows."
That's really what we've been seeing this past decade go into overdrive as the Fabian socialists who run the West have taken to redefining words as a form of mind control and behavior modification.
----------------------------------------
*By the way, my videos tend to have very specific titles, and if you search that in quotes mine will appear as the first result. I know Google has algoreithms that skew results to be more in line with previous searches, but I've never searched for that video before, so it's as close to neutral as you can get.
†That video that claimed inflation is the big bang is predicated on a lie. Most people do not watch videos to the end, and at the very end they admitted that inflation does not explain the initial state of the universe (what has always been referred to as the big bang). The video admitted at the very end that everything was a lie knowing almost no one will watch to the end.
This is just like how the New York Times will deliberately publish articles with provocative titles and then in paragraph 6 they will give the truth knowing no one will read that far into the article. An article may be titled "Trump Hates Brown People" and the article may have nothing to do with Trump except at the very end there might be a quote from some race baiter which says "Ralph Sharpman said in interview that "Trump hates brown people."" The NYT will run with that quote, and put it in quotations, but not tell you it's a quote from someone else or tell you the article is about Ralph Sharpman until the very end.
This is how they can technically not be lying outright but still be lying by saying something true in a misleading way. It's lying because it omits the context of the original statement.
Just as "nothing" no longer means absolutely nothing, it means "the ground state of the quantum vacuum", now the "big bang" isn't what it always has meant, when time, space, matter, and energy all came into existence from absolutely nothing, now it means "inflation", which happened 10^-32 seconds AFTER what was previously defined as the big bang. This is a devious little reach around to claim that "stuff happened before the big bang", just like calling "the ground state of the quantum vacuum" "nothing" allows you to say that ""science" (dialectical materialism) can explain how the universe was created from nothing without God."
Eternal inflation, the idea that the inflation that sped up the expansion of the early universe didnt' stop, it still continues in other regions of space beyond our cosmic horizon, spawning new bubble universes forever, was the first to go. Some thought inflation was eternal into the past too, but in 2003 Vilenkin and Alan Guth ran the calculations on Hubble's Constant and found that it doesn't work. Inflation may continue forever into the future, but it had to have a beginning in the past.
Next came the big bounce, the idea that after a long time, a trillion years or so, expansion slows and stops, eventually reversing until everything flys back into a single point called the Big Crunch. Then the shock of impact of everything on everything starts a new Big Bang, and the cycle continues forever. Unfortunately, disorder increases with time, so each new universe must be more disordered than the one that birthed it. If the cycle had been going on forever disorder would be infinite and the universe would be completely featureless. Since there's stuff in the universe the cycles couldn't have gone on forever. Some people then suggested that the universe just gets bigger with each bounce, so the disorder spreads out more so no one notices it (like in the M-Brane ekpyrotic model and possibly whatever the hell Penrose's new idea is - no one seems to understand his Aeons of time model, within the physics community or anywhere). But if the whole thing is getting bigger it had to start somewhere really really small, maximally small, and that means a finite beginning.
There's also an idea from the 1930s called the cosmic egg or primeval atom, where yes, there was a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, but the thing that banged was an uber-dense subatomic thing that existed forever until it got tired of existing as a tiny little particle and exploded. However, Vilenkin and a graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that quantum instability would have led to the egg's collapse after a finite time. The crack (the Big Bang) had to happen before the egg collapsed into oblivion so it couldn't have existed forever, even if it existed for a really, really long time before the Big Bang.
Here are several prior pieces I've written on why inflation cannot be past eternal:
Balking Hawking Part 1
Balking Hawking Part 2
Georg Cantor's Infinities (Part Two)
Balking Someone
Balking Hawking Part 3: In The Beginning
Make no mistake, when people say "science says" they mean "dialectical materialism says". Science does not say anything, science does not prove anything, individual scientists may say things, but science is not a catalogue of facts, science is a process.
I've made a video many years ago back when I used to make videos called "First Principle Anecdota"* that everything you know, and every conceivable system for attaining knowledge (that is, all forms of epistemology) necessarily relies on what are called "axioms" or "first principles", which are assumptions which must be taken as given but can never be proven true. At its base you can NEVER know anything about the world with absolute certainty. Everything must be based on things which you assume to be true but can never prove. Based on those assumptions you can create a system to demonstrate facts with arbitrary certainty, but the certainty of those facts is always arbitrary and is based entirely on your assumptions.
I've probably talked to hundreds of people about this and no one seems to get it. Not the "praise science" crowd who believe in dialectical materialism. It's like people can get arbitrarily smart, but their smartness is always asymptotic to the level of intelligence needed to realize that all knowledge is built upon unprovable assumptions.
Ordinary people, who are just smart enough to be dangerous, are easy to trick by these linguistic gymnastics like redefining words. You redefine "big bang" and "nothing" and get disaffected teenagers into becoming atheists. That's how they get you. Meanwhile the geniuses (technically the plural is genii), the real hard-nosed intellectual atheists who really look into the subjects like Anthony Flew, turn to belief in God because they realize that the universe and life are far too complex to be explainable by any series of coincidences.
I said a few years ago, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, "How do you change a cow into a horse? You redefine the word "horse" to include cows."
That's really what we've been seeing this past decade go into overdrive as the Fabian socialists who run the West have taken to redefining words as a form of mind control and behavior modification.
----------------------------------------
*By the way, my videos tend to have very specific titles, and if you search that in quotes mine will appear as the first result. I know Google has algoreithms that skew results to be more in line with previous searches, but I've never searched for that video before, so it's as close to neutral as you can get.
†That video that claimed inflation is the big bang is predicated on a lie. Most people do not watch videos to the end, and at the very end they admitted that inflation does not explain the initial state of the universe (what has always been referred to as the big bang). The video admitted at the very end that everything was a lie knowing almost no one will watch to the end.
This is just like how the New York Times will deliberately publish articles with provocative titles and then in paragraph 6 they will give the truth knowing no one will read that far into the article. An article may be titled "Trump Hates Brown People" and the article may have nothing to do with Trump except at the very end there might be a quote from some race baiter which says "Ralph Sharpman said in interview that "Trump hates brown people."" The NYT will run with that quote, and put it in quotations, but not tell you it's a quote from someone else or tell you the article is about Ralph Sharpman until the very end.
This is how they can technically not be lying outright but still be lying by saying something true in a misleading way. It's lying because it omits the context of the original statement.
Saturday, August 24, 2019
Invasion of the Puss-Covered Kudzu
I saw the 1978 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers last night. Here's what Wikipedia has to say:
"It initially received varied reviews from critics, though its critical reception has significantly improved in subsequent years, receiving a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, and also being hailed as one of the greatest remakes ever as well as one of the best science-fiction horror films of all time."
Here's what I have to say:
It's shit. Absolute total shit. Despite having at least 3 A-listers on board, it was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The acting was worse than some school plays I've seen, with some of the top actors of all time phoning in some of the absolute worst performances in the entire history of cinema.
Absolutely zero money was spent on wardrobe, as everyone wore the exact same outfit (as if they were me) over the course of about a week, with at least two or maybe three of the characters wearing the exact same coat, as if they were on sale at K Mart or something at the time.
The last third of the movie was shot in near total darkness from some of the worst angles I have ever seen. The sound quality was shit, the dialogue was shit, the effects were sub-par for movies made during that era, and there's a scene where a dog with a man's face appears out of butt fuck nowhere, for no other reason than to scare the humans and out them in front of the aliens, and then disappears with no explanation and is never spoken of again.
Now the two worst aspects. First, the movie breaks its own rules. When you have a movie where something impossible happens, like alien plants invade and duplicate people or zombies come back to life, you have to establish the rules early on and stick with them to the very end. It's already been established two things: 1. the aliens just float in from space and 2. it takes hours for a person to be duplicated. If we take 1 at face value then why do the aliens need to establish a base in San Francisco and then have pods trucked out to everywhere else? Couldn't they just waft in anywhere and everywhere on the planet simultaneously? This does not make sense. This is a major plot hole. The other major plot hole is 2, it takes hours for a person to be duplicated. For 3/4 of the movie this is a major plot point, because three times people have fallen asleep and we watch the pod grow a duplicate very slowly, slow enough that the person can be woken up and the duplicate will die. Yet somehow, for "drama" or lack of time or whatever, near the very end when Brooke Adams' character falls asleep for like a second, despite there being no pods in the vicinity, she crumbles to dust and a new perfectly formed duplicate appears naked in the bushes instantly to scare Donald Sutherland. This is the second major plot hole, and taken together they absolutely ruin this movie.
And the second worst aspect is the script. This is some of the absolute worst writing I have ever seen. Okay, so we begin the movie, the beginning, the very beginning, where the aliens invade. Maybe two characters are very partially introduced, and then in the next scene hundreds of people have already been replaced. It's like the whole first act was cut out. Brooke Adams (I don't remember any of the characters names except Donald Sutherland was Matthew because they said his name seven, eight thousand times) goes to Donald Sutherland and says "My boyfriend has been replaced, his personality is totally different!" Let's not introduce the character and spend 20 minutes getting to know him so we the audience can be sure he's different, let's introduce him out of nowhere already replaced and just take it as given he's different. The same thing happens with everyone. Characters are not introduced until after they are replaced and we're supposed to take as given that they are different. There's zero chance of getting into the movie because the entire first third, where the world and the characters are introduced, was omitted for whatever reason. It wasn't run time, because the movie was almost 2 hours long and they had time enough to repeat several plot points three times, just so we would get it.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers 1978 shouldn't have been released to theaters, it shouldn't even even have been released straight to video, it should have been released straight into the garbage.
"It initially received varied reviews from critics, though its critical reception has significantly improved in subsequent years, receiving a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, and also being hailed as one of the greatest remakes ever as well as one of the best science-fiction horror films of all time."
Here's what I have to say:
It's shit. Absolute total shit. Despite having at least 3 A-listers on board, it was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The acting was worse than some school plays I've seen, with some of the top actors of all time phoning in some of the absolute worst performances in the entire history of cinema.
Absolutely zero money was spent on wardrobe, as everyone wore the exact same outfit (as if they were me) over the course of about a week, with at least two or maybe three of the characters wearing the exact same coat, as if they were on sale at K Mart or something at the time.
The last third of the movie was shot in near total darkness from some of the worst angles I have ever seen. The sound quality was shit, the dialogue was shit, the effects were sub-par for movies made during that era, and there's a scene where a dog with a man's face appears out of butt fuck nowhere, for no other reason than to scare the humans and out them in front of the aliens, and then disappears with no explanation and is never spoken of again.
Now the two worst aspects. First, the movie breaks its own rules. When you have a movie where something impossible happens, like alien plants invade and duplicate people or zombies come back to life, you have to establish the rules early on and stick with them to the very end. It's already been established two things: 1. the aliens just float in from space and 2. it takes hours for a person to be duplicated. If we take 1 at face value then why do the aliens need to establish a base in San Francisco and then have pods trucked out to everywhere else? Couldn't they just waft in anywhere and everywhere on the planet simultaneously? This does not make sense. This is a major plot hole. The other major plot hole is 2, it takes hours for a person to be duplicated. For 3/4 of the movie this is a major plot point, because three times people have fallen asleep and we watch the pod grow a duplicate very slowly, slow enough that the person can be woken up and the duplicate will die. Yet somehow, for "drama" or lack of time or whatever, near the very end when Brooke Adams' character falls asleep for like a second, despite there being no pods in the vicinity, she crumbles to dust and a new perfectly formed duplicate appears naked in the bushes instantly to scare Donald Sutherland. This is the second major plot hole, and taken together they absolutely ruin this movie.
And the second worst aspect is the script. This is some of the absolute worst writing I have ever seen. Okay, so we begin the movie, the beginning, the very beginning, where the aliens invade. Maybe two characters are very partially introduced, and then in the next scene hundreds of people have already been replaced. It's like the whole first act was cut out. Brooke Adams (I don't remember any of the characters names except Donald Sutherland was Matthew because they said his name seven, eight thousand times) goes to Donald Sutherland and says "My boyfriend has been replaced, his personality is totally different!" Let's not introduce the character and spend 20 minutes getting to know him so we the audience can be sure he's different, let's introduce him out of nowhere already replaced and just take it as given he's different. The same thing happens with everyone. Characters are not introduced until after they are replaced and we're supposed to take as given that they are different. There's zero chance of getting into the movie because the entire first third, where the world and the characters are introduced, was omitted for whatever reason. It wasn't run time, because the movie was almost 2 hours long and they had time enough to repeat several plot points three times, just so we would get it.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers 1978 shouldn't have been released to theaters, it shouldn't even even have been released straight to video, it should have been released straight into the garbage.
Saturday, August 10, 2019
Let's Go Die at Area 51!
Some two million idiots have pledged to "Storm Area 51" because "They can't stop all of us." These idiots think they can run to the base, confident in the belief that the base's defenders will run out of bullets (and napalm) before all their ranks are devastated.
Storming Area 51 is a logistics nightmare. Even reaching it is something that's very difficult, and almost impossible on foot. The nearest civilian rest stop is 86 miles from the base. Even running at 200% capacity it may be able to supply a couple thousand people. As for Area 51 itself, the distance from the gate to the buildings themselves is 28 miles of some of the harshest desert on the planet. You would have to be in peak physical condition (and not the people who signed up to storm the base) just to make it there on foot. The world record for marathon, which is less than the distance that needs to be crossed than the perimeter around Area 51, is just over 2 hours. Imagine doing that in 110 degree heat on blinding white salt flats with no shade. The elements themselves will defeat 90% of the people attempting this stunt, and, given the lack of medical facilities in the area, several thousand will probably die from heat stroke even just camping out in the desert.
Assuming even 10% of the people stupid enough to go manage to cross the desert, Area 51 sits on a US Air Force base. The Air Force has napalm, and they're not afraid to use it, at least in built-up civilian areas in Iraq.
This is Napalm. Water cannot put it out. Yes, they can stop all of you.
Napalm aside, those signs all over the desert warning of the use of lethal force are not jokes. People have been shot, to death, trying to access Area 51. Even if 10% of the keyboard warriors decide not to sleep late and actually storm Area 51, and if 10% of them are surprisingly fit enough to make it the nearly 100 miles through the desert to the base, that means 20,000 people will be on the receiving end of, at the very least, rubber bullets, active denial weapons (which will stop you in your tracks unless you are very stoned on PCP or something), tear gas, and other rather cool non-lethal weapons.
This is Active Denial. It will stop you.
There are also legal ramifications in attempting to storm Area 51, as this Internet lawyer can explain. Even if you are not killed, pelted with rubber bullets, or sent to the hospital for dehydration, you will be sent to jail and fined perhaps half your monthly welfare check.
One can only pray to our Lord Thanos (the best alien, by the way) that at the very least 10% of these idiots do decide to go through with this jackassery so that the universe can become more balanced, as all things should be, through their removal from the gene pool. Best case scenario ALL of them decide to go and balance the universe.
A man can dream, can't he?
Storming Area 51 is a logistics nightmare. Even reaching it is something that's very difficult, and almost impossible on foot. The nearest civilian rest stop is 86 miles from the base. Even running at 200% capacity it may be able to supply a couple thousand people. As for Area 51 itself, the distance from the gate to the buildings themselves is 28 miles of some of the harshest desert on the planet. You would have to be in peak physical condition (and not the people who signed up to storm the base) just to make it there on foot. The world record for marathon, which is less than the distance that needs to be crossed than the perimeter around Area 51, is just over 2 hours. Imagine doing that in 110 degree heat on blinding white salt flats with no shade. The elements themselves will defeat 90% of the people attempting this stunt, and, given the lack of medical facilities in the area, several thousand will probably die from heat stroke even just camping out in the desert.
Assuming even 10% of the people stupid enough to go manage to cross the desert, Area 51 sits on a US Air Force base. The Air Force has napalm, and they're not afraid to use it, at least in built-up civilian areas in Iraq.
This is Napalm. Water cannot put it out. Yes, they can stop all of you.
Napalm aside, those signs all over the desert warning of the use of lethal force are not jokes. People have been shot, to death, trying to access Area 51. Even if 10% of the keyboard warriors decide not to sleep late and actually storm Area 51, and if 10% of them are surprisingly fit enough to make it the nearly 100 miles through the desert to the base, that means 20,000 people will be on the receiving end of, at the very least, rubber bullets, active denial weapons (which will stop you in your tracks unless you are very stoned on PCP or something), tear gas, and other rather cool non-lethal weapons.
This is Active Denial. It will stop you.
There are also legal ramifications in attempting to storm Area 51, as this Internet lawyer can explain. Even if you are not killed, pelted with rubber bullets, or sent to the hospital for dehydration, you will be sent to jail and fined perhaps half your monthly welfare check.
One can only pray to our Lord Thanos (the best alien, by the way) that at the very least 10% of these idiots do decide to go through with this jackassery so that the universe can become more balanced, as all things should be, through their removal from the gene pool. Best case scenario ALL of them decide to go and balance the universe.
A man can dream, can't he?
Saturday, May 25, 2019
How to Overcome Nihilism
"Black people invented John Malkovich" - Economic Invincibility
Nihilism is the disease of the modern age. The structure of society feeds nihilism and depression. There's not much we can do at first as individuals to change society, but we can make changes in our own lives and in the lives of the people we care about that will improve our quality of life tremendously. And, at the end of the day, that will make all the difference.
Friday, May 24, 2019
Nihilism is Garbage
Friedrich Nietzsche: The Anti-Nihilist.
"I am Superman. Look at my muscles."
Nihilism is garbage. If you are a nihilist you are a nobody, a non-entity, a loser, and a defeatist.
I am intimately familiar with suffering. Injuries, disease, constant pain, years of unemployment and a string of dead-end jobs that offer no fulfillment. I know it all, and I'll admit to becoming a little bitter over the years, though I do think it has helped me advance philosophically.
People like to blame God, or speculate on how a life full of suffering is devoid of all meaning. The modern world feeds this mentality. It is designed from on high to make us feel inadequate. Anti-social media want us to feel like all of our frienimies are doing so much better than us when they are often just as miserable. Advertising wants us to be miserable so that we buy more crap we don't need or want. The media live off of suffering: "If it bleeds, it leads." Add to this the armies of Internet "black pills" and doomsayers who sell ebooks and subscriptions to even more doom online, and you have a recipe for nihilism, which Friedrich Nietzsche and personal experience in the world will tell you is currently the dominant philosophy of the West. Once we got rid of Christianity, when we killed God, we now find ourselves in this nightmare world where life is devoid of meaning.
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."Nietzsche recognized that with the advent of the nihilism brought on by the new scientific materialism of modernity (and the full-on celebration of meaninglessness that has come about in post-modernism), we would face an existential crisis. The idea of God is so central to giving meaning to our lives that without it we are no better than ants, toiling day and night for jobs we hate just to keep our heads above water while we fill the pockets of Mammon worshipers who have managed to take the reigns of civilization, all without meaning or purpose.
From Nietzsche's The Gay Science
God is dead, and we have killed him, and we are woefully incapable of filling the void in our current condition. It is one thing to feel at conflict with society and man's laws, but it is quite another to feel at conflict with the Source of all life and morality itself. Eliminating God leads to the enshrinement of the State, as the vacant throne of the Absolute cannot remain vacant in the mind of man for long. Whether the natural sciences or the all-powerful State, something man-made must take the role left vacant by the crucifixion of God. This has led to the worst totalitarianism, as, while God's laws are immutable, there is no limit to His mercy. However, the State has no mercy; it has no room for forgiveness of 'sins' against political correctness, as the State recognizes no authority outside itself. This is why the authoritarian Godless State has led to the worst atrocities in history: the murder of hundreds of millions with industrial sterility and efficiency.
When you no longer believe in God then you will believe in anything, and everything becomes permissible. If God is not your master than you are a slave to your senses. You are like the addict, the drunkard who cannot control how he drinks, but is controlled by his drinking. When you are free to do anything then you lose all of your freedom, because you are no longer in control of your body, but your body is in control of you. And when your body controls you then you are open to being controlled by the powers that be to fuel their endless lust for more power.
The reverse of nihilism, of "If it bleeds, it leads," is the philosophy of Major Dutch Schaefer: "If it bleeds, we can kill it."
The movie Predator shows us that no matter how powerful the adversary, no matter how hopeless the situation, our enemies are no less mortal than we are, and our troubles can be overcome. We just have to become the best possible version of ourselves. We have to become better than we thought we could be. Dutch didn't win because he was stronger than the Predator, or because he was necessarily smarter either. The Predators are thousands of years ahead of humans, having fully developed interstellar travel, cloaking devices, universal translators, and super medicine that allows for rapid healing of what would otherwise be incapacitating wounds. Dutch was able to win because he was able to exploit the weaknesses of his opponent to his advantage. He may not be smarter, but he can think on his feet and is more adaptable.
This is the philosophy of existentialism. Yes, life is full of suffering, but it is also full of joy, and you're hurting yourself to focus on the suffering while ignoring the joy. There are simple steps to reclaiming your joy and to once again find meaning and purpose in your life. Like everything it all begins with a choice. You have to take control of your own life and reclaim your birthright. You can take your life back because you choose to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
