/edu/ - Education

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


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

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

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


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

Eugenicists wamt to extend adolescence through the twenties and thirties.

>>7744
Of course they're conservatives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

White women look like shit by forty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

"Hard times makes strong men"

"Suffering builds character"

"Whatever doesnt kill you makes ypu stronger"

"Back in my day…"

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you believe in love after love?

Do you believe in magic in a young girls heart?

Do you believe in miracles?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not unlike gravity requiring mass to be manifested.

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

>>7763

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>7771


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Do you believe the hubbub anout UFOs being interstellar tavellers?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The racialist theory was promoted by Germanics.

The K-12 education system was made by Germanics.

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

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

The UFO portrayals in postmodern culture is Germanic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Orochimary from Naruto with his obsession with immortality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imo, adults are very self-sabotaging creatures.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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