Monday, October 23, 2017
Did early humans believe in deities? Maybe. But probably not.
It’s interesting that religious phases are reflected in economic models.
Polytheism is the stage found in societies with limited centralization and who barter and trade.
Monotheism is the stage found in societies with high centralization and who create money in exchange for service and goods.
So it’s doubtful that early man, who were scavengers with no centralization, would have conceptualized gods, period.
But it’s interesting that the one-god hypothesis rests solely on money.
The beginning of “value” was the origin of monotheism. God is commerce. God is money.
But that in itself is telling as value is a highly dubious and subjective concept. Emeralds, diamonds, rubies, gold and so on are effectively worthless, but have value because they are rare and hard to get. And yet, to a hunter/gatherer they would have neither value nor worth because they have no practical application to survival.
Economy began with merchants. And merchants were dependent upon walled and policed (and thus organized) encampments that would eventually be called cities.
From scavenging (no gods) to bartering (many gods) to money (one god).
As I’ve said before, money makes everyone a prostitute, as everyone sells themselves (a service) in exchange for it. Construction workers sell their bodies to businesses to use to build and in exchange receive money. The same is true for doctors, accountants, lawyers and so on. We all sell a service (ourselves) for money.
Economy makes every single human being a prostitute.
And as economy requires centralization and regulation and planning, a society built up around it will perceive a mythology that reflects it. If the economy and the city are ordered, regulated and planned, then so too must be the world.
So this all begs the question of what happens if and when economy fails?
If economy fails then cities fail and organized and planned society fails.
Strange that in the end, the one-god would be cast down, not by the devil, but by out of control interest rates. Or in layman’s terms, a lack of faith.....in money.
Thursday, October 19, 2017
In the meantime the tools of civilization can be used to protect ourselves. Elections are important in dividing and defining territory in the short term. But you should be very careful about using economic variables to position yourself for the future.
The next few decades will be rough and ugly.
Looking into the long term, consider:
There is no such thing as progress -social, political, economic or otherwise.
Throughout 99.9% of human existence, humans have been hunter/gatherers.
Humans/Neanderthals have existed for millions of years. Civilization first blighted the land about 8,000 years ago and then slowly spread over the ensuing age.
In other words, Civilization is a bubble. And it will pop at some point.
Because Civilization is, obviously, unnatural.
I point this out as a reminder that the overarching structures of life, as defined by civilization, will collapse.
So the prepper mentality of stockpiling against the mood swings of civilization simply won’t do it.
Ironically enough, if you want a rough model of how survival will look in the future, look towards the homeless. They are, essentially, living a hunter/gatherer existence right now -only against the backdrop of Civilization.
So just imagine if you were forced to go onto the streets to live and to do so without the assistance of soup kitchens or shelters and so on, and you’ll begin to accustom your mind towards the reality that awaits us and/or our descendants.
The paradigm will inevitably shift.
How, when and under what circumstances is anybody’s guess. It could happen suddenly or simply continue to unfold over a period of time.
Monday, October 16, 2017
Hey Globalist. I See You.
Sheep no more.
White Americans in “fly over” country tasted blood in the 2016 election cycle and they savored the taste.
Over the past year the establishment, including the GOP, have doubled down in their indifference/betrayal.
So be it.
It’s only enraged the rubes even more. And the appetite 2016‘s election engendered has only grown stronger.
2018 is a mid-term election year.
And the rubes are patiently awaiting it. They are sharpening their fangs and claws in anticipation of it.
The particular candidates who will emerge are not even the point.
And the vote will no longer be about sending messages.
The 2018 election will be about establishing territory. And defending it!
So, leftists, you want a message from middle-America?
Try reading our pissed off, fed up, faces!
Wolves do not.
Sunday, October 15, 2017
Nor should we.
For decades, as the Orcs ran amok, usurping and destroying every semblance of our culture and civilization, the self-anointed leaders of the right have counseled, not just reconciliation with the Orcs, but measured capitulation to their cause.
“Coming together as a nation” is the banner of those demanding submission to evil.
We are not going to get together with people who murder their babies.
We are not going to get together with people who willingly participate in depraved sexual acts.
We are not going to get together with Marxists just because they scream racism.
And as far as “understanding” these people. We do understand them. Very well. They’re evil.
Just a few facts to run down here:
1. The 20th Century was a catastrophe, and we have the burdensome task of undoing it’s damage.
2. There is no such thing as racism or sexism, anti-semitism, homophobia, etc....these words are constructs of globalists and socialists. They represent the paradigm of the very people who have committed themselves to destroying everything that is good and beautiful in the world.
So rather than argue a leftist’s beliefs, deny them. “There is no such thing as racism”.
Your denial of their terms robs them of whatever remaining power they have. Believe me, it works. They shut up and go away.
3. There is no such thing as progress. The idea of progress was promoted by the freaks who took control of our nations through bribery, subversion, blackmail and violence. They’ve tried desperately to convince us, and themselves, that their reign of terror represents some sort of golden age. But 100 years of unprecedented death and destruction testifies against them and their “progress”.
Evil flourishes when good men do nothing. And good men are, in all ages, outnumbered by evil and apathetic men.
There is nothing unusual about our time, save that the evil men have been unrestrained and unleashed without any real contention to their reign of terror.
But that age is waning. Going forward over the coming decades and centuries we are not going to be getting together with evil men. We are not going to dialogue with evil men. We are going to fight them and bring them to heel to restrain them and the harm they inflict on the world.
Saturday, October 14, 2017
This is something that is really irritating to read. It’s when a purported conservative writer extrapolates some broad general lesson out of a topic-of-the-week news story.
The main problem is that they tend to take a disgusting example of a freak (movie star, criminal, etc) and use it to “cast a light” on “us” or explain what said freak says about “us” as a whole or “our” society.
First off, there is no us!
Second, this “we are them" horseshit is just slippery moral equivocation dressed up as virtue signaling false humility.
Freaks and freaks. Identify them as such.
Or better still,
Orcs are Orcs.
We are not Orcs.
We are Men.
Stop drawing lessons and Draw A Damn Line, Already!
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
The mainstream news is not there to tell you what just happened. It’s there to tell you what’s going to happen.
And when a breaking news story occurs, the media co-opts it to inform you what the reaction to it will be.
It tells you how “the world” or “the nation” feels about the story, even though you and everyone you know feels differently.
In that, the media is very much like the catholic church 500 years ago. It presumes a moral mandate to steer the course of human events towards “the end of history”.
But just as the printing press came along and unraveled Rome’s ubiquitous stranglehold on “the truth”, so too has the Internet and the advent of Alternative Media come along and broken the media’s grip on information flow.
To be sure, the establishment has launched its counter reformation and is busily hunting down heretics. But the reality is that its power has already been broken in large part and can never be restored to its former universality.
The similarities between the ensconced and out of touch establishment today to that of the medieval church are numerous and glaring.
Monday, October 9, 2017
The main problem with pragmatism is its inherent shallowness. Or more specifically, its vulnerability to hypocritical outcomes once suppositions are considered.
Sane people agree that open borders are bad. The defining and fixing of places and peoples is an absolute necessity for long range social stability and order.
And yet, most sane people do not hesitate to pack up the family and move to another town or state for a better job opportunity or different climate and so on.
What’s the difference?
Borders are not merely national, they are sub-national or regional. And I’m not talking about designated lines on a map. I’m talking about extended family groups. If you are not living in close proximity to parents, grandparents, siblings, uncles, aunts and cousins in a multi-generational community, then you are a rootless cosmopolitan -a globalist denizen who respects neither borders nor nations.
These problems, you see, run deep.
Most conservatives disprove of homosexuality, yet give tacit approval to racially mixed marriages.
Most conservatives consider abortion to be murder, yet practice contraception.
On mixed race marriages the argument usually goes, ‘genetics don’t matter’ or ‘we’re all of the same species’.
But of course if the justification is that (for example) both Asians and Caucasians are of the same species so it’s okay if they mate, then what is the argument against a brother and sister mating? They’re both of the same species, after all. Both humans.
Naturally the counter point is made about defects in the offspring due to genetic closeness.
But now we’re talking about genetics, aren’t we. We’re talking about the scales of human kinds and the significance of genetic distance. Ooops! That’s literally Hitler!
And then what if these consenting sibling couples are "fixed" and incapable of having children? What then is the pragmatic argument against them?
The very idea that you would resort to defending basic values and principles solely on the grounds of arguments based in pragmatism or practicality is ludicrous.
Traditions are not merely customs, they are an age old, time tested, codification of the order of nature.
It’s obvious that nature itself informs us of these things. Different races have existed for hundreds of thousands of years. For all that time, these differing people groups practiced near monolithic in-group breeding, hence the continuing existence of, and successful perpetuation of, the races.
Blue Jays and Cardinals are both birds and yet, as a rule, Blue jays mate with Blue jays and Cardinals with Cardinals.
Human societies have always been hierarchical and structured around classes. Classes who married amongst their own.
We don’t call it the ‘Animal Republic’. We call it the ‘Animal Kingdom’, because there is a hierarchy and a food-chain. There are apex predators and then there are dinner.
The world functions within bounds and borders.
On abortion and contraception -again, if the argument is merely one of defining when life begins, then it abandons all consideration of what life is. Is life to be defined as the single, finite, span of time of a single human being? Or is life the existence of human kind?
In other words, and to put this into a Christian contextualization, does life begin at conception, or does life begin with the creation of the first man, Adam?
You see, there is more to it than technicalities or legalities. There are issues of deep complexity and meaning. Sidestepping them only compounds the problems in the long run.
If you are a conservative or a traditionalist and you defer to pragmatism or faddish humanistic scientism (the species type arguments) to defend your values then you had better be prepared to have them thrown back in your face.
If “personal freedom” is a value you support, be prepared to watch homosexuals parading down your streets.
If the “pursuit of happiness” is something you support, get ready to see your neighborhood turn into a Mexican slum.
If “religious freedom” is a value you value, prepare to watch your town turn into a Muslim Caliphate.
If a classless society is a Western Value, then you might want to start working on an explanation for the rule of the unelected political “deep state” and the extremist leftwing cultural dominance of the arts and media by people who tend to come from the same coastal cities and attend the same prestigious (read economically exclusive) universities.
Reality is not something you can escape. And nature observed is tradition.
And shallow arguments based on pragmatism fail.