God is magical nothing

Suppose there were nothing. Then there would be no laws; for laws, after all, are something. If there were no laws, then everything would be permitted. If everything were permitted, then nothing would be forbidden. So if there were nothing, nothing would be forbidden. Thus nothing is self-forbidding. Therefore, there must be something. QED.


isn’t this what they call circular reasoning or something the like? anyway,  think there’s a simpler way of ceasing to be a Nothing-believer. to realise that “Nothing” is just a concept. it’s a mere placeholder. people use  ‘nothing’ in their daily lives, and they think they know what it means. they really don’t. they say “there’s nothing in the empty glass.” the glass is littered with microorganisms, particles, dust, you know. it doesn’t contain “nothing.” there is no nothing. the glass contains oxygen.
air is filled with stuff. air is actually a gaseous substance surrounding the earth.
so the “nothing” that people believe in is a sentimental notion. it’s a reified notion. even a valorised notion. it’s something used to say the glass doesn’t contain visible dirt, doesn’t contain water or any other liquids. “for all intents and purposes the glass contains nothing, but actually it contains air, microorganisms, dust.” people believe in illusions.
i figured this shit out on my own, but here’s from Science:

NEW YORK — It was all much ado about nothing as physicists and thinkers came together to debate the concept of nothing Wednesday (March 20) here at the American Museum of Natural History.

The simple idea of nothing, a concept that even toddlers can understand, proved surprisingly difficult for the scientists to pin down, with some of them questioning whether such a thing as nothing exists at all.

The first, most basic idea of nothing — empty space with nothing in it — was quickly agreed not to be nothing. In our universe, even a dark, empty void of space, absent of all particles, is still something.

people who believe in “Nothing after death” are believing in an infantile notion. a plebeian mundane quotidian concept. even “the sky is blue” is a bit less infantile. but the sky is actually multicolor.

some posit a “deeper nothing” — but they can’t really say anything about that — it’s just another concept. “b-but…”. they don’t know that; except in a nonlinguistic manner, in a manner that you can’t describe.  ‘neti neti’ they say in Sanskrit. meaning  ‘not this, not this.’ which is not the same notion as most people have when they use the the placeholder “Nothing”. Nihilists—and those are very common, a fair amount of people of all classes, as Nietzsche said ~ 200 years ago, and which has come true—believe in the placeholder concept. they are literally transposing. projecting. transference. it’s the same as transferring the image of a secret-handshake schemer onto every single Jew. or a slaveholder onto every single white man. it’s a notion. abstracted and transposed. it’s not nothing. it’s the absence of what you are looking for. looking for liquid or visible dirt in a glass? see none? you’ve got a placeholder for that: “nothing.” opening a room to answer a question “what’s there?” nothing but a floor, walls, etc. right. “nothing.” in a room littered with mycobacteria, dust. never literal nothing.
your nothing is a superstition. the real nothing is God.
that’s how magic works.

“alpha” humans


“Adam ruins” is classic satire. Typically, but not always, and not in Adam’s case, the requirement for satire is humor.

His science isn’t incorrect. In wolves, “Alphas” are the heads of families of migratory wolves. The bonobos are our most closely related evolutionary cousins, and their hierarchies tend to be non-linear and matriarchal.

But so what? The common chimp is closer to the Bonobo than the Bonobo is to humans, and chimp societies do follow linear patriarchal patterns. The wolves must reproduce, and what do male cubs do? Either find females and bring them back to the group or become alphas by venturing out on their own.

Again, so what? The label “alpha” connotes to each species meaning relevant to that species. It’s the term used to describe the phenomenon that females of a species all tend to be most attracted to males of a certain type. Those males are considered “alpha”. This applies even in matriarchal societies — the alpha males are those that the alpha female chooses.

The “alpha” term doesn’t apply in groups where mate-selection is forced, coerced, or desperately driven. You can remove the relevance of the Alpha male by emboldening young females risk-taking and aggressiveness, by punishing male aggressiveness and risk-taking, and by removing cultural barriers that reinforce these behavioral tendencies…. exactly what the BluePillers and much of western media are trying to do in the name of ‘equality’.

race zombie

the concept of ‘race’ is dead—it never should have entered mass consciousness anyway, at least not politically. never politically. but it seems to be impossible to kill it. it’s an extremely weird concept. it has so many variations. soon as almost all “white people” became ‘color-blind’ (quasi-literally) the topic took a flip and now the race warriors are not white racists like Nazis but people who say white people should *not* be colorblind, they should specifically see race and color, “but [that] they are the only ones who can be racist.” (so a paraplegic in wheelchair can be more racist than a rich black millionaire.) so the wypepo should both be racist and not. hahaha. it’s one of the most warped concepts around. it’s living an unlife. it’s undead. it’s become vampiric. it’s so misunderstood that it’s akin to Chaos itself. it used to be nothing but regional phenotypic differences. it used to be a rather plain science of sober scientists who used scientific methods to study phenotypical differences by region. that’s all it is. then it became Democratic. it became politicized, somehow. somehow it became nuts.
and it became a monster. it was then slain in a Great War, but rose again from the dead with many heads. a hydra. you slay one head, other heads arise. what.

look, i suspected you might do this. i know about parts of academia that say “race is just an old social construct”, but that’s politically motivated by that segment of scientists.

this is like a ghost from the past with those tl;Dr, because i’ve discussed race with people in the past who also did tl;dr only when discussing race as if that were the topic of discussion *where they must make it look like they won some debate* so they mustered the longest text they as it were could. race or not, i’m not into that kind of competition or “debate”, as there is no need to usually since the fact is race isn’t just a sociological category and sure, i’ll bring on sources.

you are right that “race” is a conceptually heterogenous concept in one sense, but it’s also a scientific concept in another sense. you say “ethnicity is a sociological term” but the fact is, ethnicity is used in medicine to inform practical decision. it’s not only sociological but biological, including genetic.

race is not a topic either excluded from commonsense and philosophy. everybody knows what it means except those invested in trying to discredit it from your kid on the street to a world-famous guy like Stephen Jay Gould. to repeat: race is the concept of ancestry plus any biological consideration, but including some specifics beyond the mere “ethnicity” or “nationality” category. in fact there are subraces, which are scientific categories, although which become massively unpopular because of Hitler’s &c’s association with such knowledge. once you look into a persons physicality you are bound to somehow see or wonder where they might be descended from geo-historically. it’s not discredited and it’s not a pseudoscience. it’s a relatively well grounded science, in its anthropological part, and its archeology and forensic autopsy part, a skilled person can tell from the mere bones of the one it is working with the latters ancestry. so a racial anthropologist (yes, those were scientists officially before WW2) was able to see from bone morphology ‘this person is related to people who were historically indigenous to this valley in Sweden.’

anyway that Blacks e.g. have a predisposition to certain diseases vs. White ethnicities is a rather common knowledge by now and easily discoverable in reputable sources through google.

that shows it is not just a sociological category. as for being a scientific construct,— all scientific constructs are!


let’s first start with what a simple scientific construct is, and it’s not something that is “absolutely proven or disproven” like the populous often thinks, but it’s by historical happenstance almost if a concept or a word gets re-adapted or politically declared discredited.

firstly, when one is dealing with something unpopular regarding science, one usually has to deal with *scientism* which is not science but the pretense of being science. it’s prejudices in the culture of science, which make even people like Dawkins and Harris make a fools of themselves. but many others too.

a variation of this, and this is usually seen around race, is “race is just a construct”. usually this quite leaves out that every concept in science is a construct. and not only just a construct, it is usually a social construct with varieties of scientific confirmation. often in the history of science constructs have for centuries been used without that much confirmation, until someone recently came and confirmed it and then the name was kept but the concept re-adjusted. i.e. “we now know that this [biological construct] doesn’t do this, but does this.” i’ll be able to find documented cases of this, but most people know about this.

▬» 4,743 people were lynched between 1882 and 1968, including 3,446 African Americans and 1,297 whites. … Lynchings peaked in many areas when it was time for landowners to settle accounts with sharecroppers. »
it’s often spoken of this like this was mainly out of hatred for Blacks. i find that suspect, since this refers to extra-legal proceedings like vigilantism. there are many factors involved, like recently ended civil war. Black being freed, that had been slaves for generations. so, consider you’ve come from Africa or your ancestors came from Africa only recently, where they were warrior tribes with tribal dances (like some places still in Africa); then the only life you know is being forced in a tight regiment of work on a foreign continent among foreign peoples. you are then set free among said peoples without any social system to help you, almost. is it strange that a significant percentage turns to crime, or gets involved in debt? it’s not strange, it’s very likely. so that’s probably what a large percentage of the lynchings were, as well as a symbolic act versus the Northern authorities perhaps.
ca. 25% of the lynchings were whites, and apparently had to do with economic reasons in their peak, so obviously it’s not about White Supremacy as much as is commonly held.
that white people are the only ones to have done war, segregation, slavery, etc, and all sorts of pernicious acts in history which are actually associated with dozens of non-White civilizations (which people are largely ignorant of; even Africa had multiple empires of its own which whites had nothing to do with).
i’m a bit of a philosemite but i just gotta come out here about something that is all easily verifiable historical facts.  
this ideologi is simply a pernicious mania that has worked as background for the idea that whites somehow should be the only ones who shouldn’t have any intra-ethnic bonding or distinction. it’s a recent creation, this ideology, coming largely out of 60s America, but also out of “intellectual” France and from largely German Jews. this happens to be its historical genesis, largely, of this weird idea.
i’m sorry that the Jews in Europe had to take largely religious prejudice for centuries there, but enough is enough.
being racist against Jews is very stupid, because Jews are historical giants as achievers. but they are *numerically* *comparatively* greatly involved in this mania, of creating its ideology, from everyone from Marx to Boas, to modern NGOs that write exaggerated pieces on some very scary “White Supremacy” and ultra-evil White History that almost always leaves out anything that compares by non-white ethnicities, be it the Phoenicians, the Japanese (extreme torture science on the Chinese) or the Aztecs (bloodsports). it’s like they’re taking revenge for the centuries of hate some Christians gave them.
the Germans didn’t become manic about Jews out of sheer nothing. they’d just witnessed the takedown of their fellow European and nominally Christian nation, the Russians. it had been their neighbour for a thousand years ca. and it’s after seeing this, and hearing of the Red Terror there (which was largely orchestrated by Jews, as numerous sources in Israel confirm, about its secret police, the Cheka), as well as the presence of Liberal Jews (this is also a historical fact) in pacifist-message newspaper printing in Germany, as well as Communist agitation and organizing (Luxemborg, et al).

they point out, the value of a corporation as reflected in its stocks frequently goes up when production capacities are being scrapped. The lay-off of workers, or the rationalization of industries with the closures of so-called inefficient plants, are often accompanied by rapid increases in stock prices. Similarly, mergers and acquisitions often see the capitalized value of the combined firms go far above the number reached by simply adding their previous respective values on the stock market. These examples illustrate that the ability to accumulate is not primarily dependent on the capacity of production or more specifically on what is produced . It depends much more on the power a firm can exert over the market. In other words, Nitzan and Bichler argue that value as measured by overall capitalization is an expression of power rather than efficiency. For them, this inversion is the hallmark of capitalism, a system which has come to rely on the ability of capitalists to contain efficiency and economic progress. From this perspective, power under capitalism is based on sabotage


it struck me here at the last sentence the sameness of how modern females tend to operate, and how capitalist create a difference between themselves and others — through differential accumulation.
this has ancient roots. Caesar e.g. bringing the Celtic chieftain to his feet, in a ritual, is to signal virtus, power over the chieftain. it is to exhibit in a ritual the difference between them.
women essentially never became Christians. only the males became Christians, so now the women use the old ways to rule them.
women are essentially Marranos, conversos.
the Jews also use the old ways to rule. in fact, they never converted to Christianity.
this is why women like to be subtly offensive and to display libertinism. it’s a vulgar display of power. Pagan Rites.
it’s not about the offense and libertinism, as much as the differential display or the display of difference. if something else would have this effect, they would do that. this can be seen in how women adopted the act of smoking as a sign of freedom (power; autocracy, i.e. self-rule; nondomestication).
now women like to subtly humiliate men, for the same purpose. it’s again that infantile experience of power, which gives a supply for the inner Narc.
this is why women do shit testing. it’s differential accumulation.

Atheist cultists

a lot of the new cults are Atheist cults. some of Dawkins’ followers are quasi-cultists, use harassment and shoddy inferior argumentation. no wonder since Dawkins frequently uses fanciful ahistorical notions such as that “science is the best way to do anything.” (that’s a literal quote.) that someone so educated would make a claim like this is ridiculous. that’s not what science even means. “a way to do any and every thing”, nope. that’s not what science is. likely ~ 99% of the world’s people do not read research publications on sex to have great sex. there’s no evidence of those who have the best sex of having based than on science. that claim Dawkins makes is itself pseudoscientific. he made a thoroughly pseudoscientific claim. is someone paying him to make a fool of himself? science is a research method—it’s impossible to do *most things” scientifically, because typically science is to *study* things perioperatively in a limited way, and then exist as a database to seek knowledge in for experimentation. most things we do are nonscientific. science is a type of measure, it is not all measure. all quantification is not science, because it’s more fundamental than science, and even animals do quantification and navigation that is far more protean than science. science is not instinct. we learn to walk by instinct. even before walking we navigate environments, kinetically transferring ourselves through crawling. science does nothing to that but measure that in a limited but expanding sense. infants learn to walk by themselves, and for most people to try to interfere in that inspired by Science would be likely griveously harmful. sex, most know through instinct. what the hell is wrong with Dawkins? is he just out to make money? does he get enthusiastic but scientific blowjobs from Atheist followers?
it’s especially bad about Dawkins that he was actually a scientist, that he’d make such as pseudoscientific claim like “science is the best way to do anything.”
*even devised things* such as writing was an art for thousands of years before science. mapping, only became scientific quite recently. fashion, overall prescientific except in its most latest trends which may use science to make money. drawing, probably much older than writing. generally no one cites science qua science as a way to learn drawing or painting, as it’s something more primitive and exists in prescientific societies around the globe. etc. etc. etc.

sure, applying science to map is the best way—but when it comes to dancing, it’s not really to do with the scientific method. it’s not taught at dance classes, and dancers do not cite it. probably almost no dancer has cited the scientific method as how she became such a dancer. what Dawkins does is reduce all rigor or training to science. he in doing that contradicts himself, because he might at an other occasion tell you that tribal dancing is not scientific.

he’s a freaking pseudo-intellectual that does not realise the shallowness of his own arguments.

The Minotaur Speaks.

| am

"The Horror! The Horror!"

We are the harbinger of your destiny Baghdadi.


You now have the attention of those infinitely your superior.

True Power.

We created you.

Your children will laugh at your weakness and feel shame at what you once considered sacred.


Attack and we grow stronger; flee, and we pursue; nothing can stop the growth of our power.

Defeat awaits you.

You will know pain and shame Baghdadi.

We determined the path of your development. We defined the dogma that you will suffer by. We were present at the moment you took your first steps; we will be present at your end.

Accept perfection.

Your destiny is our design.


Your institutions are under our control.

You have no weapons except the one’s we provide for you.

We will make use of the bodies of your children.

Your God stands impotent in the face of our technology.

We are the future…

View original post 844 more words

Anarchism vs. capitalism

‘Looking at its etymology, “nice” is not a “nice” word for us new wave of tradition folks. We’re not supposed to be “nice” guys. We have a saying in Iceland, as elsewhere, that the last person to laugh has the best laugh. The following is said to your benefit, bona fide, my dear bon homes.

Definition is a tool of the LORD. He separates light from dark, for in the darkness all is equal. All the cows are black in the night. I.e. they are equal,

in pitch black:

equally dark. As in the Darkness of Communism, where all are equally human. Except the capitalist pigs.

We all see through a glass darkly. What if the anarchy you see has its origins within you? What, my dear M., if it is you who are an anarchist?

Certainly, we are living in a certain order. An arche.


Continue reading “Anarchism vs. capitalism”