Trump

Clinton supporter:

It's the sign of a rich and powerful soul, to be capable of this feeling: namely the desire to search for one's home, for the very soil of one's destiny. However, my own ancestry stretches back many generations into the first French colonists of the new world, so that the thread, as once served to connect me to the confused dreams, anguished heart and immense history of Europe, of the old world, has long since been undone with time; I've lost the smell for that portion of the Earth, and remain thoroughly American- a fact I would grant, despite my compass of nearly 10 foreign languages and a rigorous survey of thinkers of varied European descent and standing, who I certainly respect, to be no slight declinition of that culture's legacy, which nonetheless should prove but an instrument to me: my own desire for a home should then have but one form it might assume, the desire to build a home. Atlas held up the sky, but he also separates the new and old world; the Atlantic ocean bears his name.

Trump now at 1,100 delegates.


Haha; the negative attack ads on him coming out are making him look good, not bad:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thw6k1XNRtc

One thing I agree with Parodites about completely when it comes to Trump is that he represents an impulse to freedom in people- his supporters don't really care much about his policies, or the fact that he changes his mind on various policy ideas and doesn't even appear to be a "traditional conservative" much at all.. He is an anti-politician and his basic message is very simple: "I don't give a fuck what anyone says about me, and I'm going to say whatever I want to say in the moment".

---

That is one part of his appeal. But just go on reddit's support page for him and you will see greater concern for his policies than Clinton supporters have for hers. His political framework has been totally consistent for more than 30 years, just watch an interview with him from that long ago and he is saying the exact same thing he is now. On international policy, anti-globalism, and economy he is totally consistent. There are some minor political minutiae he has flipped on as I imagine its new to him and he hasn't thought about it much.


It's good that he is not a true conservative or liberal, not a republican or a democrat, because they're all retarded. Party politics is itself fucktarded- to paraphrase George Washington. The true conservatives as I said about liberals care only about their own party and doctrine, not the country- nationalism is a foreign idea to them both. They're bible thumping shitheads, as the liberals are Marxist thumping pussies.


An anti-politician though, that I suppose he is. I would call him a philosopher (not a very good one, but one that nonetheless accidentally found himself correct on a few important points, like antiglobalism) attempting to politicize his worldview. Perhaps Nietzsche's donkey:

“There is a point in every philosophy at which the "conviction" of the philosopher appears on the scene; or, to put it in the words of an ancient mystery: adventavit asinus, / pulcher et fortissimus. (Translation: The ass arrives, beautiful and most brave.)”

My new favorite girl on the internet:

















The best way to deal with them is to accept the Left's accusations of racism and bigotry and use it to the extreme of Socratic irony. By taking the racisms and the sexisms and all the rest that is dished out by the far left willingly upon yourself, you reveal the self-caricature that the person they claim you are amounts to, and that they know as well as you do that such a person can't actually exist.

And for some more good old shitposting:

It seems almost like the political system as it has been is breaking down, in a generation it might not look at all like it looks right now. Politics is wanting to move into the forefront of human life, where formerly it was content to sit back and exert indirect influences and reap huge rewards of wealth and "shadowy power". It seems that people as a whole generally respect that kind of wealth and shadowy power less and less, which is why I think there's the success of shows like House of Cards, so many shows now are focused on the system as "shadowy power" not because we viewer idolizes this, but because it all just looks like a joke.

Wealth under the current political system is a joke too, because it is divorced from the two main ways that wealth is supposed to be used: wealth needs to be tied either to an individual self-valuing or to a group-cultural self-valuing, but both of these approaches have been seriously degraded by now and much wealth simply exists in hidden pockets of the system, not serving any self-valuing at all. Wealth now only serves capitalism, which is just another way of saying that wealth serves itself. Values and self-valuing have become secondary to wealth serving wealth; values and self-valuing, which used to be the core and fundament of wealth, now simply act as commodified objects and marketed-advertised manipulations designed to help wealth congregate even further into the shadows, to retreat into itself. Corporations became shameless vehicles for maximizing shareholder profits, they didn't used to be like that but they are now. There is not anymore much sense of either an individual responsibility or a collective responsibility from wealth, wealth processes to be responsible to nothing except itself.

Binary political party systems can work to translate wealth into values and self-valuing, or they can work to translate wealth into more wealth thereby putting values and self-valuing in a dependent, secondary status. This latter is what we have today, the former is what we used to have. A binary party political system can work, but only if the wealth/responsibility matrix is still functioning in the existentia of human life.

Most people today are poor, and most corporations are only trying to get richer. They get richer by selling products and services to people, which from their own view is only a regrettable necessity. It's a serious perversion. Because most people are poor we have degradation of individual self-valuing of wealth, and because corporate charters and the legal system have moved business from the act of actually doing business to advanced marketing schemes and shareholder profit maximization only we also have a degradation of social-communal wealth. Politics used to mediate between the individual and the society, between individual self-valuing and group-business level self-valuing, but it no longer does that. Politics too became infected with the same problem that infects business-- wealth for its own sake. "Shadowy power".

How to fix this? Well how did this happen in the first place?

There is to this whole situation now a corresponding loss of subtlety of human subjectivity, also corresponding to what Nietzsche identified as the heightened psychological complexity of Christian-humanist subjectivity; because so-called slave morality was forced to become more sophisticated and self-aware, it divorced itself from naturals connections to the earth and tried to make a new world for itself. A more "conscious" world, but the problem is that human being is very far away yet from being able to consciously build what nature and phenomenological existential being has taken millions of years to create. Humans want to make a conscious world, but they don't know how to do it yet. In trying to be better, humans are cutting themselves off from themselves, throwing the baby out with the bath water so to speak. This whole situation evolved into Christian self-consciousness which became humanistic liberal capitalism, which in some people is a direct reversal of values but in others is simply a lack of self-connection; and in others more fortunate to grow up somewhat removed from these modern systems, this liberal humanism can still be a source of strength and growth in values.

This latter-most case shows that distance from these social forms can allow those forms to be translated into something better. Errors can be filtered out naturally with distance, and the more true elements can be taken upon one's own self-valuing quite naturally, provided that one again has some distance from the 'heaviness' of the system itself. Marginal elements don't only translate the system into the language of human being for the system's own benefit as Guattari noted, but marginals actually translate a human-system fusion or synthesis back into the languages of the system itself, creating new possible reforms from the inside.

That is the right way to do it, as I see it. But that way is still largely unconscious, as it must be. Other more direct and aspiringly conscious methods such as Trump represents are more dangerous, because they claim to have or assume to have a power which they don't really have, namely they think they have the same power that the original Christian-psychological modern humanists thought they had according to Nietzsche: the power to consciously make the world anew in a better image, in their own self-image.

...No. They do not have that power, no one has the power to consciously self-value. That power still lies far in the distant human future. Self-valuing is conscious only in so far as a thin skin of consciousness grows up upon a much vaster natural unconsciousness. Trump and what he represents is pretending to be something that could never yet exist: a fully-conscious self-valuing. This is his appeal, and the source of his demagoguery. He is like the old Christian slave-moralists that believes it can fight against master morality by simply becoming totally self-conscious, by submitting all its values and motives to whatever about itself happens to be conscious in this moment. Trump, and his many supporters, essentially believe (to the extent that they are capable of actually believing something like this) that they have no unconscious. That is a very dangerous thing to believe. But as with what Nietzsche observed, it may be a necessary deception at this point.

That girl has the bull by the horns somehow. Only a girl could get away with this degree of narcissism and irony... a speculative ethics of its own. How the corners of her mouth work like the I Ching.

Capable wrote:

It seems almost like the political system as it has been is breaking down, in a generation it might not look at all like it looks right now. Politics is wanting to move into the forefront of human life, where formerly it was content to sit back and exert indirect influences and reap huge rewards of wealth and "shadowy power". It seems that people as a whole generally respect that kind of wealth and shadowy power less and less, which is why I think there's the success of shows like House of Cards, so many shows now are focused on the system as "shadowy power" not because we viewer idolizes this, but because it all just looks like a joke.

In this sense House of Cards is misleading - it also portrays the other world leaders, well mainly the Russians, as weaker and dumber than they are. Homeland in this sense is more interesting, as it makes an effort to show the US as weak and others as ruthlessly strong - a kind of Trumpian approach actually.

I am sure the CIA is divided in two or three sects, value sets about survival and justification of the agency; the show Homeland is sure to have some enemies within he agency. It is an actual political arena, it seems to me - not a reflection or an illusion but a probing tool. It is often painful to watch because of the forcefulness of the manipulations, but somehow this is more relevant to me than truthful observations - the direct experience of the manipulator at work in a scheme that is a little bit too layered to fully discern. That is what is most shadowy about this time and every time of empirical decline, where mystical sects and secret services leech of the power that comes free when centralized logos corrodes.

Quote :

Wealth under the current political system is a joke too, because it is divorced from the two main ways that wealth is supposed to be used: wealth needs to be tied either to an individual self-valuing or to a group-cultural self-valuing, but both of these approaches have been seriously degraded by now and much wealth simply exists in hidden pockets of the system, not serving any self-valuing at all. Wealth now only serves capitalism, which is just another way of saying that wealth serves itself. Values and self-valuing have become secondary to wealth serving wealth; values and self-valuing, which used to be the core and fundament of wealth, now simply act as commodified objects and marketed-advertised manipulations designed to help wealth congregate even further into the shadows, to retreat into itself. Corporations became shameless vehicles for maximizing shareholder profits, they didn't used to be like that but they are now. There is not anymore much sense of either an individual responsibility or a collective responsibility from wealth, wealth processes to be responsible to nothing except itself.

Counter this I would evoke what Parodites said about technocracy and the cycles of invention. That was new to me - but I think I can get fulyl behind it. It is a tertiary part to the formerly dualistic Hegel-Marx dialectic - in general I am very adverse to dialectic, it is reductive and it does not grasp the substance long enough for it to become substantial of itself. There are, basically, no choices. The point has to bounce back and forth between yes/no and no/yes, and there is no 'if', no possibility of active valuing, of suspension of reaction to the outside, which in fact is what being, and further down the line consciousness is - suspension of 'judgment' - i.e. of linear response.

Drawing reality into ones context, then waiting, before 'breathing out' - into a slightly altered context - whereby derangements and fractals set their hooks into the endless field of deranged fractals hooked into short suspensions, resistances, self-upholdings, sandards; things that are what they are not given to be, and therefore are... give being... to each other.

Language is a away to dance around That; upthat the dance becomes That. For capitalism to follow the same prerogative, to flow around power so that the flow becomes power; that is the setup; the centralized power needs to be ritualized and minimized by being cast in marble  - marble can not dance, it can not increase - it is helpless in its dominance. Our leadership now is made of jelly, it has no gravity, it can cause and uphold no orbits of curvature of change.

Quote :

Binary political party systems can work to translate wealth into values and self-valuing, or they can work to translate wealth into more wealth thereby putting values and self-valuing in a dependent, secondary status. This latter is what we have today, the former is what we used to have. A binary party political system can work, but only if the wealth/responsibility matrix is still functioning in the existentia of human life.

Most people today are poor, and most corporations are only trying to get richer. They get richer by selling products and services to people, which from their own view is only a regrettable necessity. It's a serious perversion. Because most people are poor we have degradation of individual self-valuing of wealth, and because corporate charters and the legal system have moved business from the act of actually doing business to advanced marketing schemes and shareholder profit maximization only we also have a degradation of social-communal wealth. Politics used to mediate between the individual and the society, between individual self-valuing and group-business level self-valuing, but it no longer does that. Politics too became infected with the same problem that infects business-- wealth for its own sake. "Shadowy power".

Wealth, when it became a Signifier of a Hermetic Code, became a self-valuing, taking humanity in on its own terms. HUmans are beng valued as resources to acquire wealth.
The only way to justify this state is to invest that great wealth in a properly superhuman project, a technological path of glory.
The other solution is to break it down and let chaos find a new order.
I prefer the first option - I believe it to suit my own purposes better. I wish to build enormous testaments to the will, odes to the future, when man will no longer fear his power and upholds a truly conscious self-valuing.

Quote :

How to fix this? Well how did this happen in the first place?

There is to this whole situation now a corresponding loss of subtlety of human subjectivity, also corresponding to what Nietzsche identified as the heightened psychological complexity of Christian-humanist subjectivity; because so-called slave morality was forced to become more sophisticated and self-aware, it divorced itself from naturals connections to the earth and tried to make a new world for itself. A more "conscious" world, but the problem is that human being is very far away yet from being able to consciously build what nature and phenomenological existential being has taken millions of years to create. Humans want to make a conscious world, but they don't know how to do it yet. In trying to be better, humans are cutting themselves off from themselves, throwing the baby out with the bath water so to speak. This whole situation evolved into Christian self-consciousness which became humanistic liberal capitalism, which in some people is a direct reversal of values but in others is simply a lack of self-connection; and in others more fortunate to grow up somewhat removed from these modern systems, this liberal humanism can still be a source of strength and growth in values.

This latter-most case shows that distance from these social forms can allow those forms to be translated into something better. Errors can be filtered out naturally with distance, and the more true elements can be taken upon one's own self-valuing quite naturally, provided that one again has some distance from the 'heaviness' of the system itself. Marginal elements don't only translate the system into the language of human being for the system's own benefit as Guattari noted, but marginals actually translate a human-system fusion or synthesis back into the languages of the system itself, creating new possible reforms from the inside.

I do not see this ambition in humans, not to this degree - I expect I would welcome it if I did. I surely see all consciousness of power as attempts to break outside of ones bubble and become conscious of what one is, but at the same time as an attempt to enhance the durability and lens-distortion of that bubble; it seems reality and power will never meet, and consciousness is the bridge between the two, a rainbow bridge of shades, which is why aphorisms and sequence poetry lead from experience to understanding (integrated experience, self-experience in fresh terms, which we need like we need food) and why formal logic and mathematics as I understand do not - math has not yet been developed tot he point of allowing for phase shifts in value-context; the valency-allocating is too hermetic. There is no speculative operatorship.

Could we create a speculative operator to allow for daemonic functions?

Quote :

That is the right way to do it, as I see it. But that way is still largely unconscious, as it must be. Other more direct and aspiringly conscious methods such as Trump represents are more dangerous, because they claim to have or assume to have a power which they don't really have, namely they think they have the same power that the original Christian-psychological modern humanists thought they had according to Nietzsche: the power to consciously make the world anew in a better image, in their own self-image.

...No. They do not have that power, no one has the power to consciously self-value. That power still lies far in the distant human future. Self-valuing is conscious only in so far as a thin skin of consciousness grows up upon a much vaster natural unconsciousness. Trump and what he represents is pretending to be something that could never yet exist: a fully-conscious self-valuing. This is his appeal, and the source of his demagoguery. He is like the old Christian slave-moralists that believes it can fight against master morality by simply becoming totally self-conscious, by submitting all its values and motives to whatever about itself happens to be conscious in this moment. Trump, and his many supporters, essentially believe (to the extent that they are capable of actually believing something like this) that they have no unconscious. That is a very dangerous thing to believe. But as with what Nietzsche observed, it may be a necessary deception at this point.

I am more optimistic - simply because pessimism only allows me to see a path backward; the only possible way for me is to aim for what is happening now to sustain what I see as inevitable; and the solidity of Trumps whole psychic momentum is enough to convince me that at least Putins efforts have not been in vain; the US has been exposed as a sham particularly due to Obama's aloof absence from reality, which, given that he is the droneking skynet operator, has led the human race, a goodly part of it, to be finally disenchanted with the forces that brought him to power; it appears 'cool' is no longer the important factor. A much more brutal thing now is coming to rule explicitly, and I welcome this because the brutality behind the mask for the past three quarter century has been ... too much.

" Trump and what he represents is pretending to be something that could never yet exist: a fully-conscious self-valuing. This is his appeal, and the source of his demagoguery. He is like the old Christian slave-moralists that believes it can fight against master morality by simply becoming totally self-conscious, by submitting all its values and motives to whatever about itself happens to be conscious in this moment. Trump, and his many supporters, essentially believe (to the extent that they are capable of actually believing something like this) that they have no unconscious. That is a very dangerous thing to believe. But as with what Nietzsche observed, it may be a necessary deception at this point."
--

I don't see that at all. What's dangerous are the fucking cretinous leftists committing suicide with our culture and the globalist shitheads on both the left and right who are creating the conditions necessary for the next world war and who have already killed how many hundreds of thousands of people by attempting to convert the entire world to a western democracy and simply can't keep themselves out of foreign affairs for the sake of their bizarre inclusive multicultural utopia- that's never going to fucking exist.

The source of Trump's demagoguery is that our country's a fucking joke, it is being bankrupted by corporate puppets on both the dem and republican sides, our leaders care more about their little moral circle jerks than they do the American people and we're all sick of fucking listening to it, and Trump recognizes and admits it.


The Leftists who can't stop shouting racist or sexist are the slave moralists. They are literally moralists, in the way Nietzsche used that word to define his most bitter enemies. They feed on creating moral hysteria like the Christians did in the 80s and 90s about how dungeons and dragons players worshiped satan and were homicidal or whatever. These new moralists feed on the hysteria that goes with assuming everyone's fucking racist and sexist. Every argument N made against moralists is applicable in the full to these new breeds of them, these Left, SJW types. They, Christian moralists and Social Justice moralists, both despise greatness and beauty because they are weak and ugly, so they take revenge on the great by using their daddy the Government, the same way the moralists in N's era took revenge on the great by using daddy Jehova. These new moralists have taken slave morality and resentment even beyond the degeneracy Nietzsche prophesied with the last man: they are not merely inertial, ready to devolve into hedonistic iphone worshiping subhumans- they are actually decadent and self-hating to the point of being suicidal and willing to destroy their own culture like Sweden for the sake of letting in innumerable hordes of Muslim immigrants into their country so they can stand around and pat each other on the back about how morally in tune and inclusive they are.


The outrage pretended to by the Left, their reliance on terms like racist and sexist, the way they compare anyone they don't like, as Trump, to Hitler, all of this speaks to the moralism of Nietzsche's era. It appears to be the exact same reactionary and small minded thought process behind the Christians Nietzsche wrote of. The same trivial emotional appeals and non arguments. Anti-Trump protesters stand around burning our flag, beating the shit out of people, tearing up private property and flipping police cars. Pro-Trump's protesters- oh, yeah, he doesn't have protesters. Both N's moralists and our SJWs feed on emotional and moral hysteria the same way. They're unpleasant just to be around and disruptive. All it is, is slave morality- moralism, disguised by postmodern Marxist academic mumbo-jumbo instead of religious pathos like it was 100 years ago. Plus most of them are fucking disgusting to look at- overweight, ugly, a lot of odd facial structures. Just look at the supporters at a Bernie rally.



This is what I see them as- slave-moralists, degenerates, and intellectually suicidal retards, not as what you were talking about here:


" This latter-most case shows that distance from these social forms can allow those forms to be translated into something better. Errors can be filtered out naturally with distance, and the more true elements can be taken upon one's own self-valuing quite naturally, provided that one again has some distance from the 'heaviness' of the system itself. Marginal elements don't only translate the system into the language of human being for the system's own benefit as Guattari noted, but marginals actually translate a human-system fusion or synthesis back into the languages of the system itself, creating new possible reforms from the inside."


Besides the fact that I don't see that we even need to translate these social forms into something better- I don't recognize the existence of anything better than the forms of Western civilization, rather we're talking about the familial structure or the form of our government- besides that fact, these leftists are not creating new reforms from the inside, they're committing suicide with our culture. They are not unconsciously valuing they are consciously destroying value, as all slaves do: all weak types strive to poison and sicken the higher types, because they cannot defeat the higher type in actual confrontation. And like every moralist movement, like the DnD one, they are doomed and won't exist for very long. I'd like to take a real, full on SJW and set down with him and just tell him this:


In the feminist utopia you think your matriarchs have planned for you, you'd be lumped in among the male servants dangling on the strings of the reigme while the breeding class, from which you're completely segregated, mounts the women you worship like prized stallions on a regular basis to pump a big fat steamy load full of the next generation into their emotionally discombobulated cunt-holes, while you set in the corner watching, relishing the fact that you'll have the undeserved privilege of breaking your back paying for the next gaggle of heathens who don't carry any of your genetic legacy. Women don't actually like feminist males, in fact just a glance toward a woman by one of you gormless fuckwits would probably shrivel her ovaries up so fast they fall right out of her frigid bowels. They pretend to; they're attracted to the opposite. You see, they haven't evolved to the point of synchronizing their fore and hind brains yet, so they consciously want one thing and unconsciously desire another, but maybe for your sake, one day they will. I've considered for a long time what the origin is for you and your ilk. Is it just another example of the cycles in nature, a basic pattern in world-history, coincidient with the rise and fall of civilizations, the emergence of decadence from fruition, like the harvests, the tides, the sun and moon? Is it the product of culture hijacking by an unseen elite class, bent on manipulating the masses for their own gain, an Illuminati, or just the Jews again? I think it's just the result of fucking idiots receiving an education. In the ancient world you had to distinguish yourself. Now the dumbest fucks in the world can get an education, and this leftist shit is what they come up with after they've set and stewed in it for awhile. They know a few big words now but they're just as dumb as before. And the precious few glimpses of insight they've actually managed to acquire are now held together by the glue of their decadence, venality, and contempt for humanity and everything great, hardened like a dead tree stump at the center of their brain, so that nothing else can get in anymore. They've replaced beauty, virtue, and justice, with equality, feelings, and iphones.



With regards to unconscious and conscious value affirmation:

Life pulls the thread from a philosopher's ideal in a different
way each time; for Heraclitus, the thread was taken hold of in the child of the world-aeon
having its sandcastles washed away at the tide of history, for Kierkegaard it was
suspending reason in faith at the moment of Abrahamic sacrifice, for Nietzsche it was in
willing the eternal recurrence, for Empedocles it was jumping into the fires of Aetna. One
here runs the risk of approaching the question of world-history too philosophically or
without enough philosophy and freezing it into position, so that, without the necessary
dynamic tension, a theory of action- a politics or external scheme, may emerge within
which the content of philosophy cannot reproduce itself in anything other than the form in
which it appeared to us before.


You must still consciously assert a value to work as a cocoon, regardless of the fact that the true import of that value remains unconscious until life pulls the thread from and unwinds it. It is not how our idea obtains as philosophers that makes our philosophy, but how it doesn't obtain. These Leftist retards have no value. They assert or affirm nothing. They have no vision for human life. They have no telos for their power, and no power behind their telos. "Equality" is not a value affirmation, it's barely even a concept. Holding hands and singing kumbaya like the French idiots are doing won't resurrect the nearly 200 people that got their heads blown off in the 2015 attacks, nor avert the next attack from happening. Like Sweden, Germany, and all other far Left states, France no longer has any instinct for self-preservation as a culture and people.



Trump and what his supporters believe is very clear. (1) All utopian and Marxist thought is base and dysfunctional, for the Government must be diminished in the scope of its power, not given more power like the dems want: (2) the two parties are essentially the same when it comes to important issues like globalism- (Bush and Obama's foreign policies and economics are essentially identical) they only diverge on completely apolitical and meaningless social issues that should be determined from the bottom up by individual communities and states not top down with federal imposition, like rather or not faggots can get married or the legality of pot, plus both parties have sold out their own voter bases and have enshrined outdated and masturbatory doxa that have nothing to do with America and have everything to do with their insular moral visions of what America should be. (3) Globalism is a paradigm that has done nothing but bankrupt our country and precipitate endless wars across the middle east, killing innumerable lives on all sides and must be stopped: it has fucked everyone over save for the corporatist vampires that feed on our political machinery and it has also, by upsetting the balance of power in the middle east, unleashed on the world a form of Islamicism that had been subdued and remained dormant for hundreds of years. (4) The nation state has historically proved the only thing capable of soothing the tendency of man toward war: nationalism has also proved that politics can go beyond mere economics and see through the binary party system and party politics in general and unite a people by a shared ethos. (5) The media and the whole political correctness movement mixed with the multiculturalism thing has changed our culture in the West in a negative way and it is basically just the newest incarnation of slave morality or moralism. These issues are very specific and Trump's standing on them is very clear. On these issues there's no middle ground, you either accept their validity or not: and on these points I see Trump as perfectly and completely- correct. The ideal of the West, of western civilization, is the highest ideal yet attained by humanity, and I will not see it destroyed by pathetic spineless moral tyrants and the Muslims whose sand covered nutcases they can't keep their useless mouths off of.


Let these slave moralists with all their social justice bullshit (the term social justice, like the term hate speech, is nonsensical) continue as they are doing, and our culture will eat itself from the inside out until there's nothing left. Let these globalists continue and we will eventually precipitate something like a World War and especially in the US we will undergo an economic crash on the order of a depression not a recession- after that the Gov will be drastically weakened, and the latent hatred between the native population and the Muslim immigrants in Europe will finally be able, without police intervention, to blossom into actual rebellion, the formation of militias, and civil war. Let the Left continue pursuing its political agenda and the US will be just another European state in 100 years, a deadbeat shithole with no future where individuality is something to scoff at, where everyone's a carbon copy of everyone else and the whole political landscape has converged into a single monolithic party that gives nobody a choice- a failure and embarrassment of a state that will coast by for a few generations like Sweden on the successes accrued by a capitalism that once existed until the treasury runs dry and the script flips like it just did in Venezuela. I support Trump because none of the eventualities I just enumerated sound very pleasant to me, and I assure you, strictly from a knowledge of history and the parallels that exist, all of that will occur if Trump does not win this election, because Hillary will solidify the course we are on and bend the political machinery toward that direction to an extent that cannot be later averted or reversed. The banner of culture and the inheritance of the West's triumphs in philosophy, literature, politics, and science will be taken up somewhere else, (Russia) but America will be finished.

And to get a little more off my chest, I'm gonna go ahead and write out some of the most offensive things I can think of- but with the restriction that they're actually true. I "hate" on males too at the end.


First, to be very clear: males and females both have to suppress their sexual nature in order to divert creative, libidinal energy to higher things- that's one fundamental psychodynamic law Freud got correct- libido when diverted amounts to the energy of genius itself, the creative force civilization is made from, though how it is diverted Freud wasn't so insightful on. Given that their base natures are transformed in that way, men and females can both achieve genius: if men fail to do so, we all know what they become, but let us examine the un-repressed female human being and what a wonderful creature it is. The fact of the matter is this: if it was up to women, we'd still be living in tune with nature, hiding out in caves and picking berries to survive, or scavenging lion kills like we did 10,000 years ago, fucking dying at 18 because of an infected stubbed toe. Men built every civilization that has ever existed. While women were gathering flowers we developed agriculture. We've invented everything from the computer to philosophy to rocket science to probably every fucking thing you can put your eyes on in the room you're reading this on right now. We're the ones who have had to go to war and get killed trying to preserve this thing. We to this day, males, constitute a massive majority with regard to dangerous jobs, building the fucking bridges and laying the road etc. as well, while women take degrees in gender studies, become academics and professors, and brainwash everyone's kids with their Leftist horseshit- most of which is all about dumping the entire planet's problems on the back of the white males who produced every fucking thing they value in life. As far as I'm concerned, we built civilization, it's our house and they're just guests, who have no right to complain even if we did live in a patriarchy. (we don't.) If it's misogynistic to admit the undeniable fact that males invented pretty much all of this shit, died in wars defending all of this shit, and continue dying to this day doing all the dangerous jobs that are required to sustain all of this shit, then I guess I'm a fucking misogynist, and so is reality. If they want to prove this incorrect, then let all of these delusional Amazonian princesses go start their own civilization somewhere so we can all gather around and watch it sink into the fucking bottom of the ocean like Atlantis.


Now, I'm not about to defend the ridiculous thesis that all women are whores. No. Just that most women are whores. Say, 97-98 percent, tops. Women are biologically programmed to choose the men who provide them the most and seem to be the strongest, not specifically in a physical way, but in whatever way one male can prove superior to another. The Nazis experienced a baby boom with all the French and European women that turned their backs on their compatriots so they could bend over for a nice serving of authentic German wiener schnitzel and take them as husbands while they conquered their native lands. Women have no biological instinct for loyalty. Even among other women, they are revengeful and quite easily given to betrayal. Because they lack this instinct, concepts like nationalism are inexplicable to them. Women, who mostly control the political system now, vote to welcome hordes of hostile immigrants and actively pursue the self-annihilation of their native culture- female politicians in Germany claim that it is a good thing that Germans will be a minority in their own nation in 50 years. Let's be clear- women are the ones who vote the most and they are mostly the ones deciding these self-destructive policies when it comes to immigration and the refugee crisis. Another reason they behave this way is because they  have very small amgdyalas in comparison to men, the fear and threat processing center in the brain. Their diminished capacity to assess threats alone should render them unfit for holding political office or voting at all, since the assessment of threat is perhaps the most central issue in any politics. But I'd be willing to compromise and just set up a system where, in order to vote, you first have to serve for a certain amount of time in the military and sacrifice something real to the nation whose destiny you are attempting to control through the political process, (take the vast majority of female voters out of the equation right there) plus you only get to vote if you own land, since then you would have something at stake that you could lose through errant policies and failures of the state. Plus you have to take a test to see if you know enough about economics, history, and policy to vote. (take out the rest of the female voters.)


Their biological instinct is to side with the victorious male. Conquered females of one tribe willingly give themselves to the conquering tribe, betraying their fellow male citizens that just got killed trying to defend them, as the European females did with the Nazis. That happens continuously throughout history. The females that did not do so, and who had an instinct for loyalty, were simply killed by the conquerors, so their genetics died out from our species. The female mind has thus been shaped evolutionarily by the most aggressive, successful male conquerors: this has also bred a propensity in them to fantasize about being raped (polls repeatedly show that's the most common sex fantasy for females of all ages) and controlled. 80 percent of raped women report having an orgasm during the rape: these same women whose husbands haven't been able to make them orgasm in 10 years through consensual sex after having spent however much money on them and listening to their bullshit for years. Fucking disgusting.


Females are inherently disloyal, unable to assess threat, have no moral instinct, have evolved to seek out their own abuse and to compromise their native society by gravitating towards external powers that seem to be at an advantage, and had nothing to do with the rise of civilization- a male invention. Evidence to everything I am saying here is readily available and isn't going away because it makes people uncomfortable to admit. Look at male serial killers and see how there are somehow these massive groups of women who become obsessed with them, send them love letters in jail, etc, even if they have committed grotesque crimes- it's not uncommon for them to essentially have their own groupies. Now look at female serial killers and notice that there are no males obsessed with them or writing them letters, even if they're hot as fuck like Jodi Arias or Casey Anthony, in fact males despise female criminals to a greater extent than they despise other male criminals. I'd still fuck both of them though, but only in the ass, so I'm not entirely without standards. Who gets laid more easily- drug dealing gang bangers or math teachers? Fucking drug addicts get laid more easily than math teachers, as I have personally observed. Women aren't merely attracted to brutal controlling douchebags- they're even attracted just to assholes, anyone fucked up or risky or dangerous, scoundrels and addicts and liars more than they are to straight edge, successful, safe men.


So I have to give Islam props for at least suppressing females and their fucked up sexual propensity, the one thing it has going for it. But Muslims are fucking stupid and have IQs of 80 to 85 on average so instead of diverting all of the conserved libidinal energy to culture like the Greeks did they are just waging war on everyone and blowing their own spawn up with suicide vests. The fact that they breed 4 kids to every 1 of ours doesn't mean much when they blow two or three of them up. LoL. A single European nation has achieved more culturally in the last decade then the Muslim world has achieved collectively in 1,500 years. That's not an opinion: write down the achievements, publications, scientific breakthroughs of a random Eu. state, then write down those of all the Muslim majority nations of the world put together, and take a look at which is longer.


This is the most despicable, retarded thing every uttered: those who separate morality from politics understand neither. Rousseau. He was the grandfather SJW, who Nietzsche bitterly despised by the way, and rightfully so, because that's the total failure of Western civilization summed up in one god damn sentence, a sentence that crystallizes Rousseau's philosophy in general. That is the logic behind the Leftists who actually criticize people for drawing cartoons about Mohammed due to their being insensitive- as opposed to the Muslims who fucking shoot them to death because of it. They are so interested in the complexity of the issue, and "weighing" our right to speak against the Muslims' right to be offended, their marginalization- and their right to kill us. Unfortunately, morality is based on human concepts like equality and justice and rights and things of that nature, the things the Melians babbled about while Athens sacked their dumbass island, the stuff the Jews babbled about while Rome enslaved them, the shit the Greeks babbled about while Rome kicked them and their pederast boy-fucking degenerate aristocrats out of their own civilization for the barbarians to have- human concepts which don't actually exist and possess no real parallel anywhere in time, space, or the known universe, so when you attempt applying morality to politics (which is about things like groups, nations, races, power, social structures, intelligence differences, biology- shit that does exist) what happens is-- you fuck up, like we've been doing in the middle east, scratching our heads wondering why they won't just get on board with the democracy thing and hold hands and sing songs with us over the globalist multicultural bonfire, because after all it is equal and just and moral.


I don't have any problem with people of middle eastern descent. If a person is middle eastern and doesn't buy into the Islamic bullshit, he or she is equal to anyone else. But I have a problem with Muslims, indeed. Islam- that is, the Koran itself, demands that all Muslims either work toward establishing a caliphate and, if one presently exists, to swear allegiance to the caliph and immediately migrate to the territory and foreign power occupied by him and his forces, so I consider the Islamic faith inherently criminal, in effect an act of treason against the state. The ideology derived from it even in moderate form is still incompatible with Western civilization. I don't even consider it a religion. Unlike Judaism and Christianity, the Koran contains a political system, economic system, and the blueprint for a theocratic totalitarian regime embedded (centered around the caliph) in the "religious" praxis itself, inseparable from it, so I consider Islam to actually be a kind of political system more like communism or fascism than anything else, cleverly disguised by religious imagery and mystical code words. Islam is just the fetid, rotting afterbirth of Abraham's revelation, a fan fiction on the old testament, an appropriation of the Abrahamic faith by a half insane epileptic, child raping, serial killing, thieving, criminal, incest engaging-in, camel fucking, gang-leading, tribal war chief for entirely non religious, political purposes, so that he could unite the disparate marauding tribes of his fellow retarded, neurotic desert spawn and overthrow the government, a twisted form of gnosticism, a pseudo-Manichean apocalyptic cult that conceives matter itself to be evil and everything from music to love to sex to be an expression of evil because it is an expression of matter, within which the Jewish longing to fuse together with the universe and God which blossomed into Christianity has been twisted into a worship of death and a mindless celebration in the destruction of everything human, a total rejection of philosophy, science, and the logos itself going back to the 11th century Muslim Arabic theologian Al-Ghazali and his text "on the incoherence of philosophy".


In conclusion: fuck whores and fuck Islam, one of them figuratively speaking. But with the continuing abasement of civilization they go hand and hand. Islam suppresses female sexuality- but it completely lets male sexuality loose. (The Jews and Christianity repressed both male and female sexuality.) Unrepressed male sexuality is as destructive as unrepressed female sexuality, and while the portrait of the unrepressed females I just painted was hardly flattering, just look at these Muslims to see what males are naturally. The female instinct is to be conquered and compromise society from the inside out and open it to destructive external forces, while the male instinct is to be the conqueror and destroy everything that doesn't belong to your tribe, as the Muslims relish destroying culture, burning books, etc and anything that isn't about Allah. This is why the social forms like the familial structure, marriage, etc. which you seem to consider oppressive and the left outright rejects are to me necessary, some of the things holding civilization together. Our natural sexuality and instincts must be oppressed, suppressed, repressed, compressed, depressed- anything at all save for expressed. In their natural unrepressed form, female human beings are fucking revolting morally infantile retards incapable of loyalty and men are completely blind and destructive toward everything that doesn't come from their own tribe to the point of being basically suicidal, incapable of civilization even in the most basic form.


We're basically chimpanzees that can talk, people, that's our genetic programming. It should be common sense that we have to repress our own nature somehow in order to make civilization work. We didn't evolve to have civilization, reason, or any of this symbolic material now available to us. Nature made us more intelligent than we needed to be by the mere breadth of a hair and we just accidentally stumbled onto agriculture, which led us down the road of civilization from the philosophers in Athens down to the modern era, and now here are. We have not been neurologically equipped with any mechanism that would make it easy for us to maintain our handle on civilization, and we are in fact at war with our own biology.

Postmodernism rejects all past knowledge and thought as basically mythological, and thrives on "asking questions" for the purpose of justifying those forms of thought: but here is the problem, you cannot ask for or obtain justification for something without an external standard of value to compare it to. This is why postmodernism is anti-scientific. A postmodern has no choice but to assume that external standard then formulate questions in such a way as to read that standard into things, as opposed to starting with no assumption and then passively reflecting on the information. Postmoderns seem to want to push society in a new direction that might not work because they simply don't like things remaining the same, even if the given social forms function quite well. This is what Socrates did when he stumbled on the scene of Athenian philosophy with the pretense of "Oh, I know nothing, I'm just here to ask you guys questions" so that he could silence everybody with his bullshit questions designed solely, not to further human knowledge, but to confound knowledge. Postmoderns assume a bizarre moral reality as given, rather they are feminist or Marxists or socialists, and then ask questions formulated to destroy and then read into the subject of discussion the thesis they started with, the same way black lives matter retards assume everyone and everything is racist and then interpret all statistics and disparities as if they were racist in order to produce evidence for their theories. Just an example of this: a feminist says that the reason "cis-hetero-normativity" exists is because people are raised in an imperialist culture which unconsciously reinforces masculine forms of sexual expression, etc. First of all, that's fucking stupid. Second: what has happened here, is the thesis about imperialist culture and masculinity has simply been read into a data set in order to establish causality, namely that most people are heterosexual. The real reason that hetero-normativity exists, the real reason why heterosexuality is seen as normal- is because most people are heterosexual and humans have an in group bias where they perceive themselves to be on the same team as those who they're like, not because everyone has been brainwashed by an imperialist society that imposes masculine values so that we accept various gender roles as appropriate. The entire scaffold of leftist thought is based on the same anti-scientific tactic. They will start with the thesis that everyone is racist, read a statistic that black people are imprisoned in greater numbers proportionally to white people, and then use that as evidence for their original thesis that society is institutionally racist, blinded to the possibility (the reality) that more black people are in jail because, get this, black people proportionally commit more fucking crimes. I don't even think that most of them are aware that their thought process is broken in this way.

Philosophy's goal is not to change the world like Marx said, it's goal is the same as it has always been, to reflect reality. Reality requires no justification, so I don't give a fuck what's moral, just, or equal with regard to the social forms of Western civilization: they have produced everything noble and great in humanity. My goal is a nobler humanity, not a more just humanity; a more beautiful humanity, not a more equal humanity.

This need to justify social forms in itself is a sign of degeneration and corruption. Kulture justifies itself.



" Corruption—as the indication that anarchy threatens to break out among the instincts, and that the foundation of the emotions, called "life," is convulsed—is something radically different according to the organization in which it manifests itself. When, for instance, an aristocracy like that of France at the beginning of the Revolution, flung away its privileges with sublime disgust and sacrificed itself to an excess of its moral sentiments, it was corruption:— it was really only the closing act of the corruption which had existed for centuries, by virtue of which that aristocracy had abdicated step by step its lordly prerogatives and lowered itself to a function of royalty (in the end even to its decoration and parade-dress). The essential thing, however, in a good and healthy aristocracy is that it should not regard itself as a function either of the kingship or the commonwealth, but rather as the significance and highest justification thereof—that it should therefore accept with a good conscience the sacrifice of a legion of individuals, who, for its sake, must be suppressed and reduced to imperfect men, to slaves and instruments. "

"Every enhancement of the type "man" has so far been the work of an aristocratic society—and it will be so again and again—a society that believes in the long ladder of an order of rank and differences in value between man and man, and that needs slavery in some sense or other. Without that pathos of distance which grows out of the ingrained difference between strata—when the ruling caste constantly looks afar and looks down upon subjects and instruments and just as constantly practices obedience and command, keeping down and keeping at a distance—the other, more mysterious pathos could not have grown up either—the craving for an ever new widening of distances within the soul itself, the development of ever higher, rare, more remote, further-stretching, more comprehensive states—in brief, simply the enhancement of the type "man," the continual "self-overcoming of man," to use a moral formula in a supra-moral sense. To be sure, one should not yield to humanitarian illusions about the origins of an aristocratic society (and thus of the presupposition of this enhancement of the type "man"): truth is hard. Let us admit to ourselves, without trying to be considerate, how every higher culture on earth so far has begun. "


Though Nietzsche's aristocracy is only one ingredient in the formula of human advancement. Another is sexual repression, as I was talking about previously. Every culture that was sexually repressive achieved great things, while you observe that liberal societies rank very low on the list of contributing factors to human civilization, the reason for this being that human sexuality- especially that of women for the reasons I noted, is destructive.


"Refraining mutually from injury, violence, and exploitation and placing one's will on a par with that of someone else—this may become, in a certain rough sense, good manners among individuals if the appropriate conditions are present (namely, if these men are actually similar in strength and value standards and belong together in one body). But as soon as this principle is extended, and possibly even accepted as the fundamental principle of society, it immediately proves to be what it really is—a will to the denial of life, a principle of disintegration and decay. Here we must beware of superficiality and get to the bottom of the matter, resisting all sentimental weakness: life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of what is alien and weaker; suppression, hardness, imposition of one's own forms, incorporation and at least, at its mildest, exploitation—"


The higher ideal and civilization does not fuse with weaker ones, it beats them. I don't want the West to fuse with the Islamic world. There is no future in this multicultural idea.

To develop more seriously something I brought up, about how masculinity has shaped the female mind:





That the predominating biological instinct in female sexuality is to gravitate toward the victorious male may be readily ascertained by even a cursory examination of history, whereby the fact may be born out very clearly, that conquered females of one tribe willingly and happily end up forming harems and surrendering themselves to males of the conquering tribe, betraying their fellow male citizens that have likely been killed in the attempt to protect them. Any given tribe is thus constituted by two groups of individuals: always the conquered females, incorporated from defeated extraneous populations, and the conquering males from internal patrilineal descent. The females that did not surrender themselves, that is, females who possessed however small a glimpse at moral identity and an instinct for loyalty, were simply killed by the conquerors, so that their genetics have long ago been extinguished in our race. The female mind has thus been shaped over time precisely by the most aggressive, successful male conquerors, and by its immediate nature offers nothing more to society than a reflection of the basest reality of the masculine animal, of the true barbarism and unregulated will of man: this has also bred a propensity in them to fantasize about being raped and controlled, and indeed this appears to be the most common sexual fantasy for them. A startling percentage of raped women later report having an orgasm during the rape, with the defense that orgasm is simply a biological event that may occur in response to physical stimulation alone, not necessarily implying psychological arousal, though one cannot help but imagine that these same women likely have been unable to achieve orgasm through perfectly consensual sex with the husbands who have set by paying for their existence for many years. Women are biologically programmed to choose the men who provide them the most and seem to be the strongest, not specifically in a physical way, but in whatever way one male can prove superior to another. Women have no biological instinct for loyalty, so that there is always a distant, unreachable quality to their personality which is responsible for much of their cherished poeticism and etherealness. Even among other women, they are revengeful and quite easily given to betrayal. Because they lack this instinct, concepts like nationalism are inexplicable to them. Women, who mostly control the political system now, vote to welcome hordes of hostile immigrants and actively pursue the self-annihilation of their native culture- female politicians in Germany claim that it is a good thing that Germans will be a minority in their own nation in 50 years. Let's be clear- such degeneracy is not merely inertial, it is not merely symptomatic of a populace ready to devolve into mere hedonistic bread and circuses- it is actually decadent and self-hating to the point of being essentially suicidal, and considering the fact that, in addition to coinciding with their natural propensity, women also exercise their voting rights more than men, it can be assumed that they are mostly the ones deciding these self-destructive policies when it comes to immigration. Another reason they behave this way is perhaps because they have very small amgdyalas in comparison to men, the fear and threat processing center in the brain. Their diminished capacity to assess threats alone should render them unfit for holding political office or voting at all, since the assessment of threat is perhaps the most central issue in any politics. At any rate, liberal sexuality has proven itself, especially in women, to be a destructive force. Every culture that was sexually repressive achieved great things, while you observe that liberal societies rank very low on the list of contributing factors to human civilization, testifying to one of the few genuine insights in the Freudian analysis, namely that suppressed libidinal energy may be redirected toward creative work, philosophy, and culture-labor. The precise manner of this redirection is another question. Because women alone hold the image of man's primordial reality and predatory nature, which their minds have been shaped by, that is, the image of his power, only through her can man attain to his highest, ideal nature, to his genius, to a telos and goal for this power, to a will at last internalized,- to a power brought inward and turned into fatum, awakened to itself and become destiny, organized, individuated, and given form, transformed into an Ego and a civilization. Even Socrates had to be given his own ego and philosophy by Diotima.

" Man's purpose is to conquer nature within himself and break the influence of that ancient half-animal matronage, of the earth-goddess, over his own consciousness; to split the tree in the Garden of Eden in half, dividing the fruit of life from that of knowledge and beginning the project of Western Civilization, like the Luciferian serpent. "

And Trump is starting to lead Hillary in the aggregate polls. The globalist policy makers, who prop up their corporate machines on the accumulation of war funds and dead bodies, and the dumb public who have been swayed to their side by the propaganda they push about the coming multicultural utopia and the era of moral relativity, or as John Kerry says the complex borderless world, are making their final attack on the idea of the nation-state, on the idea of national sovereignty and personal destiny, on the idea of culture itself, and their dull axe has simply broken on the iron will of the people, who they had not noticed were not yet poisoned and asleep.

None of this should even be offensive if one stifles their reactive consciousness.

It's not "oppressive social constructs", it is evolution, reality, and biology, that has created various disparities in society. The reason why homosexuals lack social power is because they can't reproduce. Their number is static and they cannot grow as a demographic- because they can't reproduce. Every generation has pretty much the same number of homosexuals- because they can't reproduce. They will never gain any social power because their number is fixed, it can't grow- because they can't fucking reproduce. The reason why Muslim society lacks power is because it is based on an economic system outlined in the Koran that is basically socialism and will never be able to create excess capital which is required for investment in technology. Plus all of Islam's core ideology is incompatible with Western values which have historically proven themselves to be the most powerful values. The reason why blacks lack social power is because they're stupid criminals. Sorry, that's blunt. They've bred through several generations of relying on welfare, their nuclear family structure is destroyed so they have adopted the breeding strategy of rats and rabbits- have as many children as possible and hope one or two make it rather than have one or two children and spend a lot on their development, plus their past as slaves took all evolutionary stress off of intelligence, so their IQ has been dramatically lowered, which also predisposes them to criminal behavior. (Average IQ can be increased in only a couple generations because it is a function of short term biological adaptation not long term evolutionary speciation, so I am not a racial supremacist and nobody should be too morally outraged by this reality: if the welfare state was done away with and black culture remediated, their nuclear family structure repaired, etc. there average IQ would go back up in 3 or 4 generations. Doesn't mean there are not blacks right now with high IQs, but that the average black IQ is lower than that of Whites, Asians, and Jews, a fact that obtains by every IQ study every conducted on the races. The average IQ for a black person in this country is 85, 105 for a white person. Fucking imagine why  they're not doing so well culturally. It's not an opinion I have and I goddamn wish it wasn't true, just like I wish women weren't so fucked up and neurotic sexually.


Though I both wonder at and enjoy and am disgusted by female sexuality- no philosopher can do anything but that. It is abyssal and mysterious and beautiful and horrifying to me, both more animal- and more human, than my own. The rhythms of my body echo in every female whose body I have participated in- and one does participate in their body, alongside every other body theirs has once known and a thousand other nameless creative and destructive forces in the aestuous fervor of Nature, very different than what women do to our body, which is by no means a participation in but an exercise upon; somehow I feel like those echoes get lost somewhere in their womb or their bowels or along the course of their veins and muscles, they keep them forever, churning them up with secret and irrational impulses,  permanently modulating their response to the approaching height of orgasm, upon whose precipice they fall with a new grace into each new heart they surrender themselves to; they cum differently after all, for me, differently than for anyone else; their body transformed after every encounter; it moves and breathes differently now. Their flesh is soft and asks to be conquered but yet taut with power, tense, as though ready at all times to release a surge of energy, a bow pulled tight and ready to let go of an arrow, if one touches it the right way. I do like these little lovely demons. Infuriatingly so. The female being offers the Daemon for the masculine Eros, that allows us to cohere from the disorganization of our sensual reality a true artistic vision, and to pull forth from the collapse in organo-affective unity an actual will, bent by a hunger for immortality and ecstasy toward the transcendent.


It's like Leftists don't believe in evolution and biological adaptation. You can't live several hundred years as a slave and expect that not to alter the genes associated with neurological development. A border collie is just a different breed of dog but it is an order beyond many other breeds in terms of its intelligence, because of what it has adapted to. Whites kill 3 percent of them, the other 97 percent of black homicides came from the hands of other black people. Like I said the IQ differences between the races are short term adaptation that can be changed in 2 or 3 generations so there's no reason for anyone to be a racial supremacist. Adaptive qualities like IQ are extremely volatile and rapidly change in response to environment, as is seen in dog breeds. The reason why women lack social power is because like I pointed out, their minds have been shaped by the most aggressive males so as to crave their own subjugation. (It would be impossible to reshape the gender difference evolutionarily as it is not a single biological adaptation like IQ, and involves something like speciation in the different brain structures, neurology, etc. The level of psychosexual and psychological dimorphism between human males and females is far beyond anything seen in even the other apes, we are basically different species. The difference is even at the level of chromosomes. Females have the XX chromosome, males have a Y chromosome in addition to the X, but the Y chromosome alone contains 30 percent of the genetic differentiation between chimpanzees and humans and is the fasting growing part of the human genome :

"The Y chromosome is passed only from father to son. With a 30% difference between humans and chimpanzees, the Y chromosome is one of the fastest-evolving parts of the human genome."


Anyway, the point is, everything becomes much more interesting and tractable when you stop looking at things with the lens of social construct theory and begin looking with the lens of biology and adaptation, the lens of philosophy without morality- morality is always beneath philosophy.

To clarify one important thing, as race is a sensitive subject: humans respond to epigenetic pressures very readily. We're all the same species but after 2 or 3 generations of responding to a shitty environment, certain elements of that genome get repressed and others get expressed that would be beneficial in surviving the shitty environment. But in an environment where intelligence is rewarded, certain elements of the genome begin to be expressed that are associated more with IQ, creativity, etc. So one group can express intelligence in this environment, and after just a few generations in a desert, well they express different genes in response to epigenetic pressure and become less intelligent as we understand intelligence for the sake of coping with the hostile landscape. It's like the Jews, along with Whites and Asians they are considered to be one of the smarter races, though 2000 years ago they were as fucking dumb as a sack of bricks, marrying donkeys and killing each other- much like the Muslims are doing now. Or the Greeks, who gave us Plato and Aristotle and invented reason- but the proto-Athenians before them were just a bunch aimless Ionian and Doric tribes at war with each other that could barely advance past the fucking axe. Racial supremacists are idiots because they think one race has an IQ gene that another doesn't- we all have pretty much the same genes, but the environment modulates which genes get expressed and which get repressed after a few generations. This is why smokers can pass on resistances to lung cancer to their offspring, their habit activates certain epigenetic processes that lead to gene expression in the offspring. The same thing happens with IQ, sexuality, drug addiction, etc.


The genes that are beneficial in surviving the shitty desert environment: think of rats and rabbits. They reproduce constantly and have lots of offspring, not paying any attention to them, and just hoping that some of them make it. Sexual promiscuity and liberal sexuality. Signs of decadence. They eat plants and rely on the cycle of plenty and poverty, with population explosions and the contrary, mass deaths. They also feed on detritus, or whatever they can find.

Sexual repression, having only one or two offspring and devoting a great deal of time to educating and rearing them, that is the sign of genetic expression for the benefit of intelligence. Reliance is placed upon a regular source of nourishment. Most animals of this kind are predatory.


Humans contain both strategies. We're omnivores. We could eat whatever like rats, or we could become predators and eat a regular diet that is more beneficial to developing children. One or the other appears given the environment.