Category Archives: politics

Some thoughts on evolution, free market and Hitler

Posted on by
Reply

I was watching some YouTube videos made by people who rescue and refurbish old computers from the junkyard and return them to function. Basically, they take an old Core2Duo computer, fix some tiny thing that was wrong and turn it into a, well, Geekbench 3000 slug, so that one doesn’t have to buy a new i5 or i7 machine that would fly and work great, but instead extend the life cycle of an old, obsolete machine that will continue working below modern standards and annoy people for another 5 years.

Which made me think about analogies. You see, the leftist Western ideology, as formulated after WW2, wants to make us believe that all humans share the same hardware, all you need is install the right operating system of leftism and human rights, basically the right fundamental ideology, and run the right software, basically indoctrination, education and political correctness, and you get a good, emancipated human being. Then, if something doesn’t work, you blame pre-existing societal conditions, basically the software that interferes with the leftist ideological perfection, but you never actually consider the possibility that your premises might be faulty, that some types of hardware might be actually inferior and unfit for purpose (in translation, that some people might be simply to stupid to function in a modern environment, like trying to install Windows 10 on a Pentium IV computer; it might limp along, but it will work like shit).

Since the modern OS defines “good” as “opposite from Hitler”, let’s see how Hitler viewed those things. First of all, he didn’t see people as individuals, just as we don’t see computers as individuals. He would see humans as specific cases of some hardware type running a certain ideology and intellectual content. His rationale for getting rid of inferior races would be that they can’t function on the level that modern civilization demands, they basically can’t run the current OS and modern software, and keeping such obsolete or faulty hardware in function just drains the resources from the rest of humanity, it doesn’t actually add anything useful and takes resources away from the places where they could be desperately needed. Essentially, by killing a retarded child you free up resources that can be used for assisting 10 talented children; a computer analogy would be that by throwing away an old Core2Duo machine you allow yourself the option to actually put resources into buying a new i7 beast that will raise your overall functionality and productivity by a level that more than simply justifies the expense, so that getting rid of the old bucket actually isn’t a loss, it’s a gain. Keeping something shitty alive actually isn’t a net positive.

Also, there’s a matter of ideology. If some people’s heads are filled with an ideology that makes them want to kill you, you can either attempt to dissuade them, which is ineffective and costly, or you can simply kill them and produce new bodies with a non-hostile and useful OS to take the empty space. A computer analogy would be that you can take a box that runs Windows XP, and you can either install Windows 10 on it and thus refurbish it to work in a modern environment, or you can concede that it isn’t worth the trouble and simply throw it away and buy a new box that runs a modern OS quickly. Essentially, the concept would be that trying to teach inferior nations how to work on a German level isn’t worth the effort; it’s better to simply kill them all and expand the already high-functioning Germans to fill the empty space.

So, what we have here is akin to one of those philosophy seminar questions, such as “should we eat babies?”. If you react emotionally, you’re obviously too stupid to be there in the first place. If there’s something wrong with it, there should be a coherent rational response. In the case of eating babies, the rational response is that you don’t want to become a baby-eating monster, regardless of the fact that there is often an excess of babies and lack of food and the babies are nutritious. You don’t do certain things because the very choice of some options opens ethical floodgates that can destroy the connective tissue of human society. Growing decerebrated fetuses in order to harvest them for organs can make all the intellectual sense in the world, but it is such an ethically monstrous act, it opens the society to increasing horrors if practiced. Essentially, if you dehumanize other beings, if you lower the threshold of outrage over certain acts, it normalizes evil and society turns into a horror show.

This is an easy argument to make, but it’s faulty. In fact, evolution functions exactly along the lines of eliminating sub-par animals so that they don’t consume resources and contribute inferior genes to the gene pool. If you have wolves that have speed and strength sufficient for killing a sick or malformed deer, but can’t harm an average or superior deer, this will actually cleanse the deer gene pool and improve their population, primarily by freeing up the resources that would otherwise be wasted on something that either wouldn’t get the chance to reproduce at all due to sexual selection, or would reproduce with inferior offspring, or would be a nuisance in other ways. So, Hitler’s essential evolutionary argument is correct. His problem was that he had no faith in the power of free market of labor, goods and resources, among other things because his precious Germans were losing in the free market to Jews, who are arguably better. So, instead of letting the free market place resources in the hands of winners and let the losers wither away, he decided to replace that process with ideology and arbitrary assessments of superiority and inferiority. The result, of course, was a disaster and injustice of enormous proportions. I don’t, however, see a problem with the basic concept. Let people compete. Make just rules. The winners will accumulate most resources, and losers will starve. That’s actually perfectly fine and is recommended by Jesus – give more to those who already have the most, take away from those who are incompetent. That’s how you introduce healthy criteria of virtue into a society, instead of breeding whiners and victims who all demand someone to intervene in their favor in order to “redress social injustices”. The only social injustice takes place when you take resources from the successful ones in order to feed the unsuccessful ones. It’s like killing healthy deer in order to help the lame and sickly ones.

But our society went the other way – it decided that by existing, you have rights, and if reality doesn’t match that expectation, you call it injustice and whine until someone, either society or the state, punishes someone for success and compensates for your failure. This is not all that different from Hitler’s position – since his Germans can’t compete with the Jews on equal and fair terms, he will change terms and use the Germans’ advantage in physical power in order to simply kill the Jews and thus clear out the space for Germans. So, the problem with Hitler wasn’t that his philosophy and practice were pro-evolutionary and social-Darwinist, it’s the exact opposite: he didn’t have faith in social Darwinism because his chosen subset of mankind didn’t fare all that great in those conditions, so he decided to be a socialist and “redress injustices”.

A consistent believer in evolution would never adopt social interventionism. He would have faith that better will prevail, regardless of what he thought “better” to be. In order for better to prevail, it suffices to not rescue obsolete trash from the garbage heap and attempt to refurbish it, and not to play Robin Hood by taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots. Rather, buy that which is great, and avoid buying trash.

That works for humans, too. Give to those who inspire you. Don’t give to beggars who try to guilt you into giving them resources. Don’t feel guilty if worthless people are poor. Feel guilty if worthy people are poor, because that means that you didn’t support that which you deem worthy.

Your social responsibility is simply to support that which you deem worthy and great. Applied throughout society, that will make humans who are of no value to anyone fall to the garbage heap and die, all by themselves, without any need for some Hitler to act like an artificial evolutionary agent and kill them. Don’t feed that which is worthless, and it will die. Feed that which is worthy, and it will grow. Don’t have sex with something that is pitiful, and don’t feed that which is pitiful. As a result, you have instant eugenics of the best kind, without needing to resort to horrors in order to artificially implement something against the natural order.

So what is the conclusion about Hitler? What’s the problem with him? Basically, his problem is that he was a nationalist and a socialist. Because he was a nationalist, he tried to assure supremacy of his nation, against evolutionary free-market criteria. Because he was a socialist, he believed in state intervention with the goal of “redressing injustices”. The combination of those two was a nightmare of the worst kind. The problem wasn’t the eugenics, nor the concept of survival of the fittest, nor the concept of superior and inferior races. The problem was in the enforcement of arbitrary criteria. If you believe in evolution and survival of the fittest, laissez-faire. Hands off and let the successful ones succeed, and the unsuccessful ones fail. If your gardening demands weeding, it means you’re growing the wrong plants. Try growing nettles instead of spinach.

Morality along the fault-lines of the last world war

Posted on by
7

There’s one significant difference between Putin and Hitler: I know for a fact that the negative propaganda about Putin is bullshit. Furthermore, it looks increasingly like the image of both was created by the same people.

But imagine if America managed to provoke, start and win a nuclear war with Russia, and if our descendants were reading the history books written by the winners. What do you think would be a conclusion that a rational person would end up with after being brought up on such sources? And that’s what worries me, because history books are not the only thing that is written based on the results of wars. It’s also the international borders and the international laws. Who sits in the UN security council? The winners of the last world war. Who introduced the concept of “human rights” as basis of legal doctrine? The winners of the last world war. Who controls the world reserve currency? The winners of the last world war.

And what happens if the winners of the last world war are no longer the most powerful actors on the world stage? They aren’t relinquishing their power without another world war that would reset the fault-lines of power.

That’s what I mean as world war being a social thermodynamic phenomenon: it is an artifact of entropy. When there’s too much of a difference between nominal and actual power, a sociological equivalent of a hurricane arises in order to mix up the fluids and re-establish entropy.

The problem with humans is that victors are by definition “good”. Whoever wins a world war is “good”, and whoever loses is “evil”. I listened to an Obama’s speech once, at a D-day memorial, where he stated that there was a clear line between good and evil in that war – meaning, the Americans were on the good side, the Nazis were on the evil side. But if the Nazis happened to win, there would be a similarly clear line between good and evil drawn in the history books, only with the roles reversed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_uC0wy_O90

As I said, I can’t be sure about the facts regarding Hitler. Sometimes he seems very reasonable and his moves justified, and I managed to clear up a few points of contention, where his moves appeared to be irrational until I found out the facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6o84NU9Ees

Sometimes, however, he baffles me with incompetence, egomania and self-delusion. He certainly doesn’t look like either a good guy or a role model. What he does look like, is much better and far less evil than Stalin, and much better and less evil than Churchill. In any case, Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler killed Jews. That, in itself, makes you think. Churchill, on the other hand, seems to be the prime candidate for the historical role of the instigator of the WW2, and the direct cause of the destruction of the British Empire. Basically, he hated Hitler and the rise of Germany so much, he intentionally provoked Hitler into a military conflict, which was a Pyrrhic victory for the Brits; they never recovered from the blow they sustained and their international role diminished to that of America’s vassal state. If anything, Hitler seems to have been guilty of consistently implementing Putin’s principle of “when you see that the fight is inevitable, strike first”, which makes him seem like the instigator of all conflicts of the war in Europe. But don’t get me wrong: Hitler’s racial policies were evil. They follow the principle of collective guilt, collective punishment and reduction of individual soul to irrelevance, which is the exact opposite of a spiritually-centered attitude. What I’m asking is, how was Stalin better? No, there is no good there. If you ask Scylla, Charybdis is evil, and vice versa, but that doesn’t make either of them good.

And yet, we are supposed to believe that in WW2, good triumphed over evil, and that the very fact that something resembles Hitler or the Nazis is proof that it is evil.

Hitler advocated conservation of wildlife and nature, he advocated ecology, economic growth, employment and healthy industry, and believed in positive evolutionary criteria and a glorious future. Are those things also evil? No, something is not evil just because Hitler did it. He did many good things, advocated many healthy and rational concepts. The fact that he lost the war and committed some genuinely evil deeds doesn’t warrant using him as a measure of all evil.

Before the French revolution, if you asked a man in Europe what it means to be good, he would say “to be like Christ in virtues and deeds”. Today, the answer would probably be “to be unlike Hitler”. This is a shitty answer. I don’t buy that. You can’t define an apple by saying it’s unlike a banana. You can’t define Sun by saying it’s unlike a piece of coal. That’s why Celsius scale of temperature isn’t good – because the point of water freezing just isn’t cold enough, you need the point of atoms not moving at all, you need the Kelvin scale, and Hitler is very far from being the thermodynamic zero of mankind. Furthermore, even if we managed to identify a person that is the thermodynamic zero of morality, what then? Should we define “good” as being not similar to the worst asshole who ever lived? That’s supposed to inspire people? People need to worship heroes, they need great deeds to inspire them, they need to see great and noble examples and think, “I want to be like that one day”, not see the worst possible human and say “oh, at least I’m better than that”.

You might say that comparing oneself to Jesus might set the bar too high and induce feelings of guilt and unworthiness, but so what? Being significantly less than God is certainly less depressing than being somewhat better than the worst possible scum. Besides, every time you want to measure yourself, you get to look at God.

What’s going on?

Posted on by
26

I’m trying to understand what I’m seeing.

Yes, another month, another Muslim terror attack in France. This is becoming a regular thing. What bothers me is that those things were obviously allowed to happen, and not only that, but the order came from America. The order to allow the hordes of Muslims into Europe and America, where they will do what they are best at – murder and rape – came from America. There is no other explanation for it.

What I’m interested in is “why”.

You see, the Paris, Brussels and Nice attacks are utterly unsurprising and predictable. The only ones shocked by that are those who are so fucking stupid they actually believe the leftist bullshit about all people being the same and all cultures and civilizations being the same. The main result of this officially sanctioned invasion of unwashed Muslim hordes from the Middle East will be the awakening of Europe and America to the true nature of Islam. It will remove Islam’s carefully designed and implemented trickery of the “religion of peace”, and people will see it for what it is: that ISIS and Al Qaeda are not some “heretics” who “misinterpret” Islam. They in fact practice it literally and diligently. It’s the “moderate” Muslims who are not practicing that thing properly. That’s the truth of Islam. Islam is the religion under which Europe was robbed, plundered and raped throughout the Middle Ages, and it only subsided once Europe industrialized and developed power sufficient to crush the Muslims militarily and turn them into colonies (which, if I may add, was the perfect state of things, because allowing those shitholes to function as sovereign states is a bad idea).

The consequence of letting the Muslims into Europe en masse is so predictable, and it is so certain that those giving the order knew what would happen, the only remaining question is “why”. What are they trying to accomplish?

My working hypothesis is that guys in Langley are very smart. Those in Washington are usually stupid and corrupt idiots, but there are some very smart people in the CIA, who basically think the same way I do, only they have more information and resources. So I can assume that they know the demographics of Europe, they know what a strategic error it was to give the Muslims the monetary equivalent of the entire energy expenditure of the Western civilization by allowing them to profit from oil and thus influence the Western civilization without actually needing to rise up to the challenge and attain the civilizational level necessary to participate in it. They know who actually ordered and financed 9/11. They know it’s the Saudis, they know what it’s all about. They know more about those bastards than I do. I’ve seen some public documents; those were written by smart people. So CIA is in the know about Islam, they know the same things Geert Wilders knows. It’s just that they don’t talk about it in public; rather, they prepare contingency plans, they develop options for dealing with the problem.

If we look at the entire recent history of events in the Middle East, America has been intervening there in order to decivilize and deindustrialize countries, basically removing from Islam everything that was obtained by oil money, and reducing them to their natural state of medieval savagery of ISIS. That is actually a good thing, because ISIS is not dangerous. An Islamic state with modern weapons and technology is dangerous, but if you remove the industrial layer and reduce it to the technological level Islam would naturally have if not for oil, the danger level is that of the Somali pirates – you need to watch them with some minor naval force, but they are harmless to the West. It looks very much like America has been going through the list of Middle-Eastern countries, sorted by hostility to America, descending, and crossing them with red ink, one by one. Iraq, Libya, Syria. The next one on the list is Iran, but since this one is the most difficult, Turkey and Saudi Arabia might rise closer to the top of the list.

So, if America is trying to get rid of the threat posed by Islam that was empowered and enriched by oil money, why are they importing Muslims en masse into Europe and America? Well, you can’t really get rid of the Muslims if people in Europe and America have an idealized, unrealistic picture of Muslims as some kind of innocent victims of colonialism and Israel. Muslims need to be seen for what they are, and no amount of propaganda would do it. What is actually necessary is to allow the Muslims to show, in several controlled instances, what they want, what they would do if unchecked, and what they truly are. People need to see them for what they are, and it would be utterly incredible and unbelievable if shown to the peoples of Europe and America in any other manner but through the blades and guns of Muslims. So, what we are seeing here, the terror attacks, it was allowed in order to awaken us to the evil of Islam, and to show us what Europe will look like if we allow that to immigrate and breed here, financed with our own tax money, because the Muslims are simply incapable of functioning in our civilization on merit while remaining Muslims. And the Leftists, whose ideology allowed it all to happen, they will utterly discredit themselves now and will also be seen for what they are: blithering idiots who think “good” means “different from Hitler”.

And I can expect the next steps. Turkey will descend into Islamism. Saudi Arabia will openly spite America and some serious shit will take place there. Iran will soon obtain nuclear capability, and then Israel will act. They will wipe out all Muslim centers in the Middle East, and by then people will be prepared to see this not as an evil act, but as something that, finally, someone actually had the guts to do, for the good of all. Islam will be banned everywhere, the Muslims will be dealt with in some way in both Europe and America, problem solved.

What I don’t understand is why America is simultaneously poking at Russia and China. I also don’t know if it is all actually a result of someone’s careful planning, or if some degree of chaos and uncertainty played a role. What I do know is that the likes of Obama and Hillary are puppets on someone else’s strings. That much is obvious; they are someone’s creatures.

Ideologies and group identities

Posted on by
22

I’ve seen an interesting way of thinking in the Western jurisprudence, a sort of an extreme individualism which sees every possible guilt only on a personal level, disregarding even the very concept of collectivism.

And yet we constantly see how people act in groups, with group bonds of belief and emotions, which create common thoughts and joint actions. When you have thousands of football fans breaking each other’s heads, your problem doesn’t exist on the individual level. It’s not individuals performing those actions, it’s the groups. Individuals are just instruments which the abstract group entity uses to assert its dominance, attitudes and beliefs. In that sense, nations really do exist as entities with emotions and willpower. Football clubs really do exist not only as administrative entities and players, but also as an idea that binds the fans into a group entity, connected on some very basic common denominator.

It’s very easy to get sucked into binding your personal identity with some group. When you do, it’s important to understand that you don’t become more than yourself, you become less. You don’t become something larger than yourself by identifying with a group, a group becomes something larger than it was by increasing its membership. You, yourself, simply ceded parts of your identity, and replaced your individual, personal thoughts with collective thoughts, collective emotions, beliefs and goals. It then becomes possible for you to attack people you don’t personally hate, but you hate them as part of your group identity.

For me personally, it’s interesting how I became capable of truly understanding some things about biological conditioning and inclusion of animalistic mechanisms in spirituality only after I chose to stop self-identifying as human. I literally stopped seeing my identity as part of that of human race, and started seeing myself as a separate species, that is still close enough to human to reproduce with humans, but no closer than a dog is to a wolf. I started seeing through social and reproductive strategies that were usually seen as spirituality, and my entire perspective on ethics changed. For instance, humans have no ability to tell good from evil if you separate it from what’s good and bad for humanity. For instance, if somehow some other species evolved on Earth which was far superior to humans, and the absolute karmic law would demand that humans go extinct like the Neanderthals before them, the humans would view that as evil. If an absolutely better species needed to go extinct in order for humanity to go on, humans would choose themselves. That made me think: what if all other ethical opinions commonly held by humans aren’t what God would want, but what the self-serving humanity wants? God would want sat-cit-ananda to manifest. Humanity wants there to be more humanity. That’s all there is to it.

As I said, it becomes interesting when you dissociate yourself from the group you implicitly belonged to since birth. You start noticing things, the same way you’d notice things if you dissociated yourself from some more obvious social identity, only with more profound, more liberating consequences. One of the most important things you notice is that people aren’t very interested in the truth, they are more interested at “being right”, being on the right side, and the right side is the winning side. It’s just an animalistic instinct of wanting to be on the winning side, because those on the losing side are traditionally either killed or sold into slavery. Also, if one side offers no advantages to you if you pick it, you pick the other side. Truth, reality, that doesn’t even show on your instinctive mind’s radar. Truth is what the winning side tells. Reality is that the winners live and consume resources. That’s what mankind is about, not God, not truth, not manifesting sat-cit-ananda. It’s about who gets to live, reproduce and have resources. God is what is invented to rationalize the winning side’s right to do what it does, and to allow it to keep what it had taken. If a real, true God existed who would question the order of things, he would not be acknowledged as their God. Essentially, if you had a-prefixed deities, where “a” stands for “absolute”, aGod and aSatan, and humans could choose which one is God and which one is Satan, what do you think, how would they do it? Using rational philosophy, metaphysics and transcendental ethics? Or by the criterion of being allowed to live, reproduce and consume resources?

What do you think what Allah or Jehovah are, in the absolute sense? aGod or aSatan? An entity that lets your tribe kill, plunder and rape, own sexual slaves and demands blood sacrifices, does that sound like the sat-cit-ananda Absolute that created the dual Universe in order to manifest His fullness as a multitude? From where I see it, from my non-human position, it’s either completely fabricated, made up as a sick fantasy of warlords and madmen, or it was inspired by Satan as a system of belief that will bind humans into groups that are most useful for his goals of keeping souls bound in ignorance and sin, and leading them to perform sinful deeds that will propagate their enslavement to this place.

I once heard an interpretation that a division between God and Satan is within religions and not between them; between individual ideas and concepts and not so much between whole ideologies. But I wonder. Some ideologies, as a system, seem to be consistently promoting beliefs that are conducive to ignorance, bondage and resistance to any change from that status, and people assume group identities based on those ideologies, aligning their destinies with the group vector.

So yeah, think about that the next time you cheer for your country on the football championship, when you identify with others based on what OS runs on your computer or a phone, when you identify with others based on your species, race, nation, religion or other stupid bullshit.

The only thing you actually are, is what you are when you stand naked before the spirit of God, in His light. Every other identity is a descent into some illusion or another, promoting and propagating bondage and suffering. And guess from which perspective your actions are going to be seen and evaluated when you die?

Live your life in such a way that you can stand before God, stripped of any kind of collective identity, and have God see your life as his own, something that was His manifestation in the relative world of duality. Because where you’re going, there are no football clubs, nations, races, genders or religions, and the only true judgment that is passed on any action is whether it is of God, who is sat-cit-ananda.

The flowchart of madness

Posted on by
Reply

I was thinking about hierarchy of belief and how it can cause apparently unrelated problems.

Let’s illustrate it with a flow chart which shows how a terrorist attack at a gay club becomes possible:

flowchart

Basically, you end up with very bizarre beliefs and behaviors that are a logical consequence of accepting previous, apparently logical and sensible steps. That’s how you get people who believe that Earth is flat, that dinosaurs were contemporary with humans and that Earth is some 6000 years old, but that’s also how you get people who get to believe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old. They just follow a different hierarchy of belief: for instance that the world is real, that its laws are constant, that it isn’t a simulation that’s running on some astral computer, that it all behaves linearly independent on existence of observers, etc.

If at least one accepted belief in the chain proves to be false, the final conclusion will be worthless. So when we see a terrorist who takes an AR-15, goes into a building and shoots people (whether they are gay, Jews, workers in an abortion clinic or audience at a heavy metal concert is irrelevant), we naturally think he’s fucked up in the head because his beliefs and actions are contrary to all reasonable and accepted behavior, but the thing is, you can’t just dismiss his internal flow chart. There is some decision-making process he went through and came up with those conclusions. It doesn’t happen at random. Also, people don’t just happen to join cults at random. There’s a flow chart: is there a God, are there people who know God and can lead others to God, is this guru one such person, how should one act when he meets such a person, and you end up shaving your head, wearing a saffron robe and chanting 16 rounds of Hare Krishna a day. The conclusion sounds ridiculous when you’re unfamiliar with the particular flow chart, but when you think of it, people are usually lead down the garden path of consistency with all previous steps taken, where one thing follows from another, until you get something that appears to be completely irrational.

That Muslim shooting 100 gays, he wasn’t irrational. He just accepted that there is one God, he’s called Allah, he sent a prophet called Mohamed who revealed the perfect and authoritative scripture called Qur’an, and there are also the Hadith about his life and sayings that clarify matters further, this is all authoritative and if one wants to be saved for eternal life he must adhere to those instructions.

That those internal flow charts exist is obvious; the true question is, what is yours, and what if it contains faulty premises that result in fatal errors?