Programming is a wonderful mix of art and science; source code is both a poem and a math problem. It should be as simple and elegant as it is functional and fast. This blog is about that (along with whatever else I feel like writing about).

Friday, July 29, 2005

Skype's Purchaser

I just read Cringely's theory about Skype's near purchase by Rupert Murdoch. He thinks it was to put Skype into play as a takeover target by another telecom company. His guess is that it will be either a mobile phone company like Vodaphone or NTT DoCoMo, or a cable company who wants to get into the VOIP market, like Comcast.

I must say I disagree with him. Comcast already has a digital phone service, which uses VOIP. What use would they have for Skype? I don't buy it that they want those 20 million subscribers to sell movies to. Why would Skype's customers switch to Comcast? Many of them don't have broadband, and more are international (and Comcast isn't). So they wouldn't be eligible for such downloaded movies.

And a mobile phone company? They'd be just as interested in killing Skype as the normal telecom companies. Skype can be used by any device that can connect to the internet, basically. People in coffee shops can use Skype on their laptops. People with PDAs can talk whenever they have wireless coverage, as if their PDA was one of those PDA-phones that cost much more.

That gets me to my counter-theory: Skype will be purchased by a company that wants to expand into a new market and sell their own product to go along with Skype. They will blanket the US and possibly Europe with a wireless signal (WiMAX?) and sell PDA-like devices whose primary use is as a phone, but it also inherently has full access to the internet.

Who would do something like this? I would guess that it would be either Intel or Microsoft. Intel wants to build and sell WiMAX transmitters and cards. They want to expand into more markets, including the home. Basically, they want to put an Intel chip in as many places as possible. They'd get their WiMAX chips in every consumer's laptop, PDA, and especially the Intel-branded PDA-device that goes with the service. They could offer such a service at similar cost to a cellular phone, available both in the home and on the road. They could take over the mobile phone market and the traditional telecom market it one fell swoop. And they'd make a lot more profit, because they wouldn't have to launch satellites like the cellular companies or invest in underground or expensive infrastructure. They would only have to put a WiMAX station or two in a few score major cities and get a good amount of bandwidth.

But Microsoft could do the same thing. They're looking for ways to grow the company, and they always love expanding into new markets. Additionally, they just announced that they're planning to acquire more companies in the near future to use their technology. Skype could be one of these purchases. Microsoft sells the mobile OS that Skype runs on. They'd love to be able to build their own phone and sell it to people directly, getting hardware revenues instead of software licenses. Of course, they would also continue to license the OS, so they're still getting those revenues. They'd use the same strategy that Intel would, but would probably push it a lot harder and market it a lot better. And they'd tie it directly into Windows, and the MS-phone would cooperate with it perfectly ... when you're sitting at your Windows Vista computer with your MS-phone in your pocket and you get a call, you see it on your screen (maybe it pauses your music or movie), and you can either answer it with your computer or use your MS-phone as the handset.

I can see Microsoft spending a few billion dollars to make that happen. If they did this (with their OS monopoly), they could rule the world for quite a while longer.

So I say be wary of MS looking into Skype. I'd much rather have Intel do it, or have Skype continue under its own sails. There's nothing wrong with a private company that makes $70 million dollars a year and has awesome growth potential. So there's no need to sell it.

147 comments:

BlogTerrorist said...

Low Biological Quality of Humankind

It's taboo to even mention a range of topics, because they'll make some people feel uncomfortable. Having
seen how well this empire of not offending some people has steered us into an ecocidal evolutionary dead
end, I'm not inclined to care: their empire failed, in a way that ancient civilization and the NSDAP
could not (you'll recall that many great artists are only discovered after life has defeated them and
buried them in pauper's graves; so it will be with tradition).

How did their empire come about? Impetus toward creating civilization was lost, because civilization
itself got wealthy and powerful. The parasites came in, and seduced the women and compassionate men, who
rapidly gave way to "new" ideas (there are no new ideas, only good ones or bad ones; originality is a
separate concept, and applies to how well you describe an idea in art or discourse). These "new" ideas
consisted mainly of vast profit to be made by manipulating hordes of dumber people.

Over time, because the fundamental assumption of these "new" ideas was a lack of responsibility to the
unitive whole of nature and cosmos and humankind, as was provided by the religion-philosophies of ancient
civilizations, these philosophies expanded scope (as all philosophies tend to do; it's a "slippery slope"
argument that applies in every case) and came to include the empowerment of the general masses. This
meant giving them a vote equal to that of people who were smarter, healthier and of better moral
character than they.

Herein was the disaster.

At this point, you have a society which promotes dumb, ugly and destructive people over those who have
more beneficial traits, simply because dumb, ugly and destructive people have a need to disunitively make
profit at the expense of others. Most people who were born into a bad body/mind tend to be destructive,
and if they're smarter than the absolute bottom, they become shrewd because that allows them to be
remarkably intellectually effective - albeit within a narrow and meaningless space. They become experts
at making money, usually through sleazy means, as did the Snopes family in Faulkner's "The Hamlet."

Soon the dumb, ugly and mean guys get the pretty girls, because no matter how disgusting you are as a
person, if you have wealth, well, in a society of equals that's the most important thing, and therefore
you'll be a good parent. Your kids will probably be wealthy too. Over many generations, this equates into
a dying out of the better people and the promotion of the greedy, stupid, violent, etc. In short, it's
counter-evolution, or a destruction of what evolution has done through greed and egoism, which as you can
see are the motivating forces behind "equality."

At this point, most people are of low biological quality, as measured in the three indexes:

# Intelligence. Whether you measure it with an IQ test, or watching them in a revelatory activity,
intelligence can be measured, although you usually have to be at least as intelligent as what you're
measuring to get any kind of exact figure (this explains high school guidance counselors and their
destructive, weird and revengeful decisions, doesn't it?). However, intelligence is an inborn property.
You do not get a genius out of a turnip-picker, no matter what the popular media says. Find some genius
born "magically" to two stupid parents and you'll either find an adoption or a genius grandparent.

# Health and Beauty. People who are well-formed, who are naturally healthy and who tend toward healthy
decisions are usually the most physically able. They may not be great athletes in a specialized sport,
but in terms of general ability to do things like get around and survive in a forest or battle, they're
absolutely qualified (note that many major league players would not qualify, as the history of athletes
in combat bears out). People who are well-bred tend to have health and beauty as well as intelligence and
moral character.

# Moral character. This is a difficult definition, but a good starting point is this: one's natural
inclinations and values are inborn, although they can be changed by post-birth treatment, especially
abuse. These inborn tendencies where they touch on ethical questions form one's moral character. By
moral, I do not mean the binary "don't kill, hurt or offend any person" morality of Judeo-Christianity,
but the holistic morality of the ancients: doing what is right by the order of the cosmos. In some cases
this means killing; in other cases, healing. There is no clear absolute rule for it, and that's why the
ability of the individual to perceive it - this ability varies widely between individuals - is quite
important, and complex enough that it can only be conveyed by years of positive breeding.

When I look around the average American community, there's a very clear low biological intelligence
factor. People waiting in line at McDonalds for twenty minutes, wasting gasoline and paying high prices
for very bad food. People who cannot drive, even though it's a simple process, mainly because their
attention spans wander and they exist in a slow-motion dream of their own distraction. What about all the
true idiots one encounters in offices and stores, who can be guaranteed to miss the obvious and thus take
the long way around to solving any problem, wasting tons of your time?

Even further, look at what people buy. That most people will buy a $3.99 plastic widget instead of a
$5.99 metal one of the same function that will last twice as long shows not only a basic ignorance of
math (6/2 = 3, not 4), but a total lack of moral character, in that they prefer cheap garbage that clogs
landfills to something of enduring presence. Maybe they don't trust themselves not to destroy it? And
what did they spend that "saved" $2 on, anyway? Oh: beer and DVDs.

Something tells me this people will never be appreciating Beethoven, or even Emperor. They aren't going
to read Conrad, or even Crichton. They're never going to see past the lies of Bill Clinton, or of George
Bush. They're consumers, pure and simple, and they cannot appreciate anything subtle in life, or anything
that demands knowledge of structure and not merely external form. Yet we're breeding more of these and
squeezing out the smart people, because even a total fool can narrow his sights on commerce and make a
lot of money in a specific area - and plenty of them do.

Bill Gates, for example, couldn't survive a night in a forest armed with only a pocketknife. Steve Jobs
wouldn't last as long as Bill would. And Paris Hilton? John Kerry? Britney Spears?

We're descending in not only ideology and lifestyle, here on planet earth, but also in terms of
biological quality. We're failing it on the "producing better humans" front, and because so many people
are dumb as rocks and without moral character, we deconstruct and simplify and abstract anything we
write, see, hear, do so that everyone in the room can get it, in the process obliterating meaning for the
few who actually matter.

As our current society begins to fall apart, starting first with its higher functions and moving into all
aspects of its homeostasis, it at the same time confronts some obvious truths that people have been
ducking since the 1950s, namely that pollution, energy depletion, overpopulation and entertainment
culture really do turn us into elaborate hamsters who are guaranteed to die of cancer in some
crime-infested hole of a city. This process has inspired new impulses toward purging the world of waste.

Our best ecological experts, namely the ones who are alert to the full depth of the problem, suggest 500
million people on earth. If we're going to trim back people, when we grow up and get over our pretense,
it makes sense to select the best 500 million by intelligence, health/beauty and moral character, so that
humanity as a whole improves instead of staying at the same level of mediocrity with simply lower
numbers. In this respect, it's fortunate that our society is falling apart, as it gives us a chance to
clear out the dummies and start working toward higher biological quality again.

Interestingly, a eugenic society would require almost no internal changes. If suddenly we moved up a
grade, the people who would be left would use our extant social and political systems for sensible goals,
because there would no longer be hordes of morons to manipulate with demagoguery and fancy products. We
wouldn't even have to change religions, as smart people interpreting Christianity would start it off on a
more realistic, nature-friendly footing.

Now that we've gone so far into the void, it doesn't look like we could come back, but it's entirely
possible we can, especially if our first step is to upgrade our genetics by slaughtering fools, morons,
criminals and other blockheads who impede sensible living for those fortunate enough to be well-bred. I
have a strange feeling that in this future society, there'd be a lot fewer taboos about discussing
intelligence and biological quality of humankind.

July 20, 2005
80876.6396678428

BlogTerrorist said...

Postmorality

If there is one thing humanity needs to hear right now, it is this: "Grow up!" However, this is not the
form of maturity of which is commonly spoken, by which they mean a certain docility and resignation that
allows one to call a job and servitude to social prestige a meaningful life. The usage here refers to the
ultimate maturity, which is an ability to accept reality in all of its positive and negative dimensions,
and resolve to act upon it as is necessary.

We could call this ultimate maturity "realism," because when all the semantic arguments are brushed
aside, and all the ontological concerns shown to be aspects of the same question, we realize that most of
human discourse centers on objects of perception without stopping, first, to form a comprehensive system.
Since there is no explanation for our world as a whole, what replaces logic is an ability to analyze
details intently, without ever discovering the interconnection between data.

This basic failing is akin to us as humans selecting to believe only that which originates in a human
mind, and to relegate reality - the interaction of beings, natural forces, and objects in our physical
real-time world - to second-class status. Whether we pick materialism or dualism, both extremes serve us
badly by taking our attention away from an observation of life and pointing it toward arbitrary
linguistic problems that do not necessarily related to reality.

As such, realism is the king of all scientific outlooks, and herein is its paradox: although we all live
in the same world, not all have the fineness of perceptual analysis to understand realism. Most people
not only "would prefer to" cling to stolid absolutes that require no interpretation or context to be
applied, but also cannot conceive of any other form of belief system. It is only in our recent (400
years) mania for new customers to not offend that we have made the presumption that all people, if "given
the same advantages," can understand the same complex thoughts.

Thus we have a troubling situation, onto which another is rapidly piled: a nearly indefinable belief
based upon a reality in which we all live, but which we perceive to different degrees. Luckily, nature
makes this easy for us, and the best-bred among us are the ones who - owing to greater intelligence,
health and moral character - are able to perceive not only what is, in an immediate sense, but its
function, even over time. These are realists who often move to the next level, which is idealism.

Idealism in the vernacular means something different from philosophical idealism; in philosophical
idealism, one suggests that the world is (a) composed of thought or (b) operates in a similar method to
thought; the two are roughly conflatable, in that if the world operates as thoughts, on the high level of
abstraction at which philosophy works, it might as well be thought. Still, even the most spacy of the
idealists affirm realism as the basis for their idealism. How does this work?

What we call science is the process of deducing structural functions to our world, and then using those
to in turn predict responses to certain events or actions. When we understand how our world works
(realism), we can then turn toward the question of its manipulation (idealism), which is subdivided into
questions of how, which relate directly to our degree of realistic perception, and why, which are more
akin to the goal-setting tendencies of idealism. Realism is perception; idealism is a study of design
both in perception and moral action.

Of course, balancing these two ideas is quite a challenge for almost anyone, and only the smarter ones
among us can do it - but among Indo-Europeans, this is not as small of a population as one might think.
Although the dumbest among us make themselves known as the loudest, there is usually a silent group who
function at a high level of efficiency and care deeply about doing the right thing; these however lack
the impetus to draw attention to themselves, as they already understand a spiritual principle by which
self is secondary to whole. These people understand the secret of nihilism.

Unlike most philosophical systems, which are based on achieving an ideal or asserting a value as higher
than others, nihilism is a discipline. It's a way of training your mind to look at the world, and from
it, as in any fully-developed philosophical system, comes an explanation of the entirety of philosophy as
opened for us by the initial realizations of nihilism. Once again, it's not for everyone; if you don't
get it, you might not be ready, and many among us will never be ready, as they literally lack the
circuitry to understand it. Much as you cannot educate a kitchen blender into a supercomputer, you cannot
make a philosophical genius out of the average mind.

Nihilism seems a paradox. It denies all value, thus obliterating the objective/subjective and mind/body
divisions favored by dualists, yet it upholds the idea of abstract structure ("design") behind our
cosmos, as when one denies value one turns to function, specifically function of the physical world. It
is not, however, materialism, as materialism champions a faith that material comfort and individual
survival are the highest goals that exist; most likely, those who are materialists lack the circuitry to
go further. Nihilism is a form of idealism, in that it posits an order to the universe that can be
understood through logic, but rejects value-judgments as a method of doing this; don't categorize and
classify, suggests nihilism, but describe. Describe structure, not physicality or emotionality.

In this we achieve the beginnings of a fully mature philosophy, something akin to the "pragmatic
idealism" Nietzsche described or the pessimistic Hindu-inspired idealism of Schopenhauer; it is
reminiscent of the beliefs of early Greco-Roman civilizations, where the gods personified natural forces
and were beyond any form of "moral judgment," or classification into good and evil. When the ashes settle
over the last thousand years of Western civilization, it will quickly become clear that moral
classification led us to a kind of linear thought that detached us from a study of systemics, and thus
allowed us to do ludicrously destructive things in the name of details - the individual, an absolute
moral principle, or the need to make some cold hard cash.

One of the best aspects of nihilism and cosmic idealism alike is their rejection of absolute moral
judgments, meaning any type of rule that applies without context and to all people alike. The simplest
example is the hypocrisy over murder in the West; we say murder is wrong, and then murder people for
committing murder. A nihilist avoids the initial error by never saying "murder is wrong," but instead,
electing to murder those who threaten whatever values are held dear. A rapid stratification appears among
human beings at this point, because depending on where we are on the intelligence-moral character scale,
we value different things. Those who are at the higher end of such a scale have valuable opinions, and
the rest... should probably be oppressed.

All philosophical concepts are interrelated, and every philosophical system uses a core concept as an
introduction to all other parts of philosophy; if your system is idealism, for example, you translate all
other philosophical questions into idealist vocabulary, and then analyze them and synthesize responses
from that point. A nihilist system is no different. Nihilism is both radically different from
Christianity, but agrees with it on many points, much as it does with Hinduism and other cosmic idealist
systems. If it has an enemy, it would be the lower-level systems, like materialism and superstition,
which rules out Judaism and Voodoo.

However, any good nihilist does apprehend quickly why in ancient societies the principle of karma/caste
was rapidly attached to a postmoral system: if there is no prohibition against killing, one had better
limit that function to those who know enough to handle it. In the same way we do not give firearms to
three-year-olds, certain privileges must be earned by those who show aptitude and character for them. As
most of the questions of philosophy are complicated enough to take a lifetime, ancient societies tended
to breed people for these roles, thus producing the original definition of aristocracy: the
philosopher-kings and warrior-kings who knew how to wield the power they had.

A modern comparison to this is any form of martial art. The students are taught slowly to take on the
powers of a fully capable fighter, so that alongside raw technique they may absorb years of wisdom - and
be sent away by their teachers if they are psychopaths or otherwise defective. Just as one does not teach
post-911 Arab students to take off in planes but not land them, one does not teach nutcases to kill with
a punch. The caste system is part of this karmic order in that it is recognized that, with each advance
in breeding, the design of the next generation changes; those designs are most likely to function as
their ancestors did. As a result, one creates groups like aristocracies which are bred for the finest
traits and pass them along to their offspring.

This system works surprisingly well. Outside of a few defectives, most people have the abilities of their
parents, if developed by education. Even more importantly, they have the moral inclination and traits of
their parents, and therefore make similar types of decisions. The power of nihilism and postmorality in
ancient societies was kept among those who had for generations proven themselves able to wield it; this
is a more effective system than our modern one, which supposes that "anyone" could be effective with this
kind of power, so we give it to them and hope they don't screw up. Remember that during election year.

What we refer to as postmoralism was designed for elites by breeding, as it is a complex system.
Essentially, traditional "Western" (Judeo-Christian) morality is designed around simple rulesets: evil is
bad, murder is evil, therefore if you murder, you are evil and we should murder you. Postmoral tradition,
as mentioned above, does not waste time banning murder. It asks, simply, was the murder fortunate? which
means: did the murder increase the elegance and graceful function of a natural order? If one has murdered
a child molestor, order is increased and made better; if you murder a child who otherwise would likely
done great things, you are probably a psychopath and should be murdered.

In warfare, for example, murder was viewed as glorious in the idealistic tradition, as those who lost
lives had done so in fulfilment of their place in a natural order, and in doing so, had risen a level in
the karmic cycle by not shirking from what must be done. Even more, victims were sacrifices to the gods
of the nature, and had fulfilled their own role; material fortunes came second to spiritual ones (a
complete reversal of the modern logic). One did not weep for a conquered enemy, but sang for the whole of
nature, as in the growth of better people a more logical order was instituted.

Other examples come to mind. Idealists tended to treat their women better than any other group; they gave
them privileges, had laws against their mistreatment, and tended to murder and mutilate those who
committed rape, incest, and assault in peacetime. In war, it was different; rape of a conquered enemy was
viewed as a chance to increase the breeding potential of that tribe, and was thus a joyful occurrence. If
a warrior with IQ of 140 raped a woman with IQ of 85, the logic went, she received an upgrade (payable in
next generation) of some IQ points, thus all was cool. It's important to note, of course, that idealists
did not engage in world wars for economic and political commodities, thus it's impossible to compare
their actions to those of a modern time.

Another example is money. For those who deserved money as a means of achieving their function, it was
viewed as a natural right and something not to be questioned; for those who did not have such a use, it
was seen as suspect to care too much about it. If you have enough to live and retire, what is the need
for desiring more? - they viewed it in the same way our current society views people who spend their
entire income on pornography and lubricant: obsessive. Money was something granted by the gods for a
purpose, not a purpose in itself, as it is in modernity.

Unfortunately, this system was replaced with a one-size-fits-all system, in which postmoral rules cannot
apply, because they must apply to everyone, equally, in order to be "fair." As one might guess, such a
system was not created by the few highly intelligent ones, but by the masses of unstable and
unspecialized people who inherently fear those who might be more capable than they. The masses won by
numbers, and overwhelmed their leaders and aristocracy, and that brought us the downfall of Greece, of
Rome, and the future downfall of America. It also brought us absolute moral judgment and "good"/"evil."

Now that America has run its course, and it has become clear to even liberals that the system is
collapsing under its own weight and paradox, the idea of a postmoral society is again considered. And, as
all concepts are linked, people are again considering the concept of an aristocracy of our most capable
to wield the kind of unfettered power that such a civilization allows. Creating rigid moral rules, and
then having checks and balances on leaders, hasn't worked; not only has corruption flourished, but we've
been unable to make necessary long-term decisions.

While our system is reassuring to those who fear they are inadequate, it has traded sanity for the
accomodation of those who are defective or underperforming, and not surprisingly, the results have been
terrible. This is why humanity needs to "Grow up!" and realize that we're not all equal, and we need some
qualified leaders fast, before we make ourselves miserable and then in short order, exterminate ourselves
and all that we care about. To take that step, we need to go down the winding path from realism to
idealism through nihilism, and in doing so, to cultivate in ourselves a new maturity.
36698.5073435369

BlogTerrorist said...

Why choose Satan over Jesus?

Consider- Satan has the traits of a hero. Rather than supinely lie down and accept subservience to another spirit, he followed his own path, that of a leader, even though it was not the sure and easy path. Consider the story of man's fall- Satan gave man knowledge, acting as the christian version of Prometheus. And yet the christians reject him, choosing the one that would keep them comfortably enslaved! And furthermore, they choose him so that when they die, they can live in numb enslavement for eternity!

Now consider- Jesus was an anti-hero. Too weak to exert change on the world himself, he was only able to martyr himself in the ultimate act of passive-agression and let others usurp the power balance. Is it any wonder why he should be rejected?
63821.1014002274

BlogTerrorist said...

Adam Yahiye (Y.A.) Gadahn: An Appeal

This is an open letter to the American people regarding Adam Yahiye Gadahn, and his recent addition to
the terrorist threat list by the FBI. Unlike most of the documents on this site, it is a plea for
"walking around in the other guy's shoes."

I never met Y.A. Gadahn face-to-face, but I knew him through his contributions to my radio show. When I
last spoke to him, back in the 1990s, he created several fliers for the show, and helped out with
numerous music programming suggestions. I remember him as a passionate, courteous, intelligent kid
excited about life, but somewhat cowed by its unnecessary human-induced dark side, thus prone to
listening to lots of quality death metal.

Call it compassion, or call it empathy, but a lot of kids like Y.A. Gadahn resonated with me in spirit.
They came from dark homes where overworked parents (if they were lucky - often a single parent) drove
long hours to labor in the bowels of the city-machine, and came home with no energy for their kids.
Brainless, authoritarian public schools. Neurotic adults who couldn't explain why all of this was
important. An increasingly-restrictive republic whose electorate seemed uninformed as to the actual
issues. A natural world being consumed and turned into strip malls at an alarming rate.

I think this future is what alarms a lot of us, patriotic Americans and al-Qaeda radicals alike. The idea
that maybe we're speeding toward something we can't control, that we can't undo. The thought that as our
obsession with money and power reaches new heights, we'll forget nature, and will also forget there's
another way outside our dark thorny path of righteousness.

I don't believe al-Qaeda is evil, and I don't believe George Bush is illegal. I definitely don't believe
A.Y. Gadahn is "evil," or even ill-intentioned. I think he's a sincere guy like any number of others you
may have grown up next door to, worked a cube over from, spent time guffawing with at a baseball game. I
knew him as a normal kid, with normal desires and normal fears, including a growing dread of what "modern
life" has become.

Because of this, today, I ask for your compassion, and for your consideration of a singular thought: it
could be there are no "good guys" and "bad guys" here, but that we, as a society have lost our way and
need to re-invent our values. Where we once had a goal in overcoming nature, we now have no goals except
those in society itself... money, power, look-at-me social importance.

More than any tangible political goals, I think it's the goal of al-Qaeda and other dissident groups
(including ANUS, the GNAA, and Abrupt) to resist that coming darkness. It might not yet have stamped its
consequences onto our foreheads, but it's like that day in school when your teacher is delayed in
conference and you and your friends spend the first twenty minutes of class raising hell: this can't end
well. Ultimately, there will be a piper to pay.

Your oceans are choked with plastic. Your air, awash in chemicals. Your cities wastelands of crime and
look-a-like plastic storefronts. Your children, alienated and lonely in dysfunctional families, broken
social relationships, and prisonlike schools.

Before you ride another normal guy into the ground so he can be worked over by military intelligence, I
ask you this: consider an option.

Do it for A.Y. Gadahn, or do it for whatever ideals you hold dearest, or do it for yourself, but do it.
Resist. With reason, passion and the knowledge that it doesn't have to be this way.

Sincerely,
Spinoza Ray Prozak
61159.7297693969

BlogTerrorist said...

LOL @ Terry Schaivo

With Bill O'Reily saying to keep her alive because "a miracle could still happen", people across America asking Fox News how "we can starve her to death when someone starving a dog gets sent to jail", and other such inanities, the thoughts of the common American are obvious- death fear reigns supreme. It's better to live in pointless existence than to end this existence.

Interestingly, many of those for pulling the plug are demonstrating a similar lack of understanding of the state of nothingness by sympathizing with the plight of someone who doesn't know or care about her plight.

Chalk up another victory to "being enlightened"!
38185.0340674426

BlogTerrorist said...

Elections and Futures
Plenty of ink has been wasted on the 2004 election in America, and what it portends for our future. Much more won't be wasted here, but it is an opportune topic on which to show how people identify themselves with partisan viewpoints and thus conveniently blind themselves to the actual larger question of leadership. If you think picking Kerry over Bush, or Bush over Kerry, is somehow going to stop the course of decay, or constitutes a decision of any importance, you are assuming that there is a solution within the system itself and are denying its basic unworkability.

Those who own the media and politicians will be glad for such a view, at it supports the current dysfunction and the broken values system behind it which praises "freedom" while allowing an oligarchy motivated by money - not Judaism, not multiculturalism, not a vast right-wing conspiracy - to manipulate you and destroy your future. In this view, you had the sensitivity people, represented by John Kerry, and the aggressive people, represented by George Bush; if you picked one candidate and believed honestly that that would change the nature of the system, or "prevent" a great ill, you are pretending that (a) that there's not much wrong or (b) that there's so much wrong we can do nothing about it.

Such pretense is a justification for inaction that transcends political boundaries. Such an inaction takes this system at face value, and by believing that solutions lie within the options offered, endorses our system as not only workable, but worth supporting! In a larger view, a vote for Bush or for Kerry was a vote for a continuation of a failed system which has been getting increasingly authoritarian through both Republican and Democratic administrations; the system would continue on its course because its power lies in internal division, which conveniently allows vast profits to be made while future problems accumulate - whether you picked Option A or Option B on the ballot.

It is fortunate the George W. Bush won the election.

This is not because he was the best candidate, but because it brought the situation to a peak and demonstrated the failings of this system in its entirety. Bush represents everything that's despicable about America: its religious and "freedom" rhetoric while supporting corrupt allies for the sake of international commerce, which transfers money from our population to investors who have no allegiance to anything productive - they care only about their profit, and how to take it from you. They consider themselves "smart" for doing this, since it is "getting ahead," and being "successful," and damn all who can't see this - they must be stupid.

Neither candidate would have changed anything; it's clear that if Americans weren't rock-ignorant they would have put in votes for Nader, guaranteeing the presence of third parties in a political system that increasingly represents two different views of the same option. However, they listened to their televisions, and out of fear that Bush would win, threw all their support behind Kerry, every bit as much the child of privilege and conniving robber baron that Bush and his family are. Consequently, Bush wins this election, and a democrat the next, and the system continues basically unchanged. Although it is current popular to whine about Bush, keep in mind that he was elected by the majority of the people, and represented little different viewpoint than that of John Kerry.

Imagine that John Kerry won. What would he do that differs from Bush's policy? Not much - Clinton demonstrated the willingness of the left to sign away constitutional "rights" and "freedoms" in favor of national security, and any president that doesn't address the threat of "terrorism" with more draconian measures guarantees his own failure. He can't back out of Iraq without leaving Iraq to collapse; he doesn't want to keep fighting the war; and if he picks a "middle option" of less military involvement, he guarantees a military defeat as well as the collapse of Iraq. He might try to prop up the ailing Social Security program, but, as the wisest economists point out, it's a system dependent on future wage earners making less and paying less to support more people. It is doomed.

So what did John Kerry offer? He's a devout Methodist, remember - but he might patch up some things with Europe. That's great, if we want to drag Europe down into the same morass that afflicts America - why would we want that? He might be more popular worldwide because he's less visibly ignorant, less of an insane warmonger and less of a religious fanatic, but that's conjecture based on the idea that he was opposed to the Iraq war and would sign the Kyoto treaty. As shown above, his options in Iraq are extremely limited; Kyoto is a symbolic gesture, and going beyond it would require that Kerry turn on the corporate interests that helped support him. Not very likely, for a politician.

No, my friends - you aren't children anymore - there are no such easy answers. The disease runs far deeper. Not only does every democracy collapse this way, but your system is motivated by a psychology of masses versus elites that guarantees we all lose, every time. People rail against Bush because it's a popular opinion. Every celebrity repeats it, and your favorite political commentators and entertainers parrot it. It's popular because, like most popular opinions, it claims something vast and important for very little action; it's a "bargain." Bush is the problem, bleat bleat; it's not the downfall of your country because the foundations of its power are corrupt by nature. If we just get rid of the bad apples and "terrorists" - bleat - maybe we can return to enjoying our freedom, our DVDs, our heroin and our hobbies. Wouldn't that be a nice easy vision?

It is however an essentially similar idea to the concept that you can buy a different selection of products than your friends and thus construct a unique identity, or the idea that if you buy a health club membership, you'll automatically start excercising. My friends, there are no such easy answers, and in a society motivated by money, all of your obvious choices will support that system of money. Neither Bush nor Kerry came from anything but a life of luxury and doors opened by whispered names, but - bleat bleat - they're clearly better leaders than Nader. They offer us what American society has always promised, which is "freedom" (yet no one can define it) and the ability to earn as much money as we can stand putting in the boring hours to achieve. American society promises there are no elites, and that we're all "equal," and in that is the disease.

While George W. Bush is a horrible leader, a sociopathic fundamentalist zealot, and makes no illusions about his being in the pocket of large corporations, the problems run deeper. Clinton after all had the same issues, as well as some problems keeping his pants zipped. But you have to ask yourself: what kind of a society keeps pretending this is an operational system? Money drives the world, and so culture and nature and art are ploughed under while products that satisfy the basest of mass appetites make wealth for unscrupulous investors. Since we always need new customers, the society itself keeps expanding. It doesn't end, at least not from its own will; it ends when it collapses into a third-world economy, and those always seem to be run by oligarchies of international investors who buy off local warlords.

Money drives the world - because we cannot agree on a direction, we pick money as something "equal" and "fair" to us all, since the best obviously are the most driven to make tons of money and thus, are suitable as our leaders. It isn't that these people were born of kingly blood, but that they've worked hard and gotten ahead by manipulating the system - by being popular and appealing to the broadest segment of opinion, no matter how ignorant it may be - in healthier times, we called such people prostitutes. It isn't the president that creates the system; he is a creation of the system. If you believe as your controllers wish, you'll think that democracy has been "subverted" but if you read a little history, you will see that all democracies end this way, because the public image requirements of democracy create behind-the-scenes commercial oligarchies.

While we have the ability to fix our society, but perhaps not the democratic system, it is not going to happen by picking Option B over Option A as your vote. Nor can it be helped by making charitable donations to the "right" organizations, nor by becoming an "activist" and staging public protests that no one gives a second thought. It requires something new for the American public, and that's actual political involvement, instead of "supporting" one of the two talking heads and hoping that "the good people" will fix the situation for you. I mean, did you really believe that - are you still children, after all? The oligarchs laugh at you, little sheep, for falling right into their trap, all while congratulating yourselves for voting for the "right" man!

Realizing this cuts to the root of the problem: for centuries our society has been at war with itself, masses versus elites, and it has ended up deciding in favor of the more populous group - the broadest segment of society, who generally have no specific talents or inclinations, but are able to buy products like anyone else and thus, if "empowered," become ideal consumers, because they have no tendency toward higher rationale of purchases. There isn't anything "wrong" with such people, but clearly they're not the right leadership for any society which wishes to rise above its origins. The public ideal that ignorance is better than appearing to be "above" any other citizen allows the oligarchs to manipulate citizens with public image. In life, everything keeps going on a path toward the simplest compromise unless something brighter and more visionary intervenes.

Bush illustrates that the American way of life and political system is incompatible with any values system, as the simplest ideas always triumph, and when your choice of leader is to pick one of two camps of opposing millionaires, there's clearly a fault in the system and not in which candidate you pick. This is a more complex view, and one that doesn't take our system at face value. I am sure you are all smugly disagreeing, congratulating yourselves on knowing the "truth," but perhaps if you think on this you'll see how you've been played for a fool.

Those who are the most smug are the drones, who are happiest with any philosophy that justifies inaction and following the present course of action; these are the underconfident people who want some reason to feel good about themselves, and the idea that we require change and constant development toward new heights of strength and wisdom suggests to the underconfident that something is "wrong" with what they are; these people see only the present moment, and not the bigger picture. Drones love the current society because it gives them a reason to feel good about themselves; after all, we accept everyone as they are, and look at the good things we are doing for others. We feel better when we can reach a hand out to others and help them, as it makes us feel powerful. Who needs that but the underconfident?

And what is the ultimate evil, to a sheep or a drone, except to be beyond the rigid and absolute rules required by underconfident individuals to protect them from criticism and possible defeat? For this reason the rule of the sheep has prevailed in Europe and America, and it has bred people who conform to its rules and expectations, leading to an ongoing decline which no picking of Option A or Option B can stop. Realize that George W. Bush is what he is - the right man, for the right time. But recognize that time for what it is: the final stages of a social decay. This rot comes from our illusory thinking, and makes broken people, and only when we reverse it do we become internally strong enough to have a society worth living in again. What reverses it is a heroic mindset, in contrast to our current passive one.

A heroic mindset places the individual second to what must be achieved so that all may experience its greatness; its opposite is the passive viewpoint, which in adults (although most adults today adopt it) is emasculating. Passive mindsets include the idea of an absolute religious truth, like morality, or an absolute secular truth, such as liberalism; other variations on this are utilitarianism, or the belief that what most people find appealing is the right path for us all, and of course, materialism, or the belief that nothing matters but individual comfort and convenience. A decaying society will be passive, and will not offer you an Option on the ballot to undo its error through a normal election; you will have to "think outside of the box."

The passive mindset is your true enemy, although it may not directly affect you, right now. All declining civilizations have such a passive mindset, because such an outlook is needed to stop increasing the power of a society and to fall back into dividing up the spoils, following social trends and caring about popularity - rising civilizations set aside these temporary delights, and instead look toward achievement as a sense of pride. This is what made all ancient civilizations great, and will be responsible for the rise of any future civilization that is great. Our current society has nothing to say for itself except that it is passive, and pledges not to hurt you, unless you offend its sensibilities, in which case you are "evil."

Television drones pick one option over the other and congratulate themselves on thinking "progressively" or for upholding "what made this country great," but no such simple options await you - Are you still children? Bush is reprehensible, but he is a symptom of the illusory thinking of our decaying civilization. Instead of believing in politics itself, think outside of politics and arm yourself with ideas of a better civilization - in this is the only salvation from the type of dysfunctional options offered by election 2004.


26616.74962926

BlogTerrorist said...

Groupthink
Language knows no master. If ever a definitive description of life and the best philosophies possible in it will be written, the people who come after will know how to subvert it: they will, starting from the smallest and working up to the grandest, redefine its words to mean something convenient for their own beliefs; they will bend the belief system toward their own by changing the simple equivalencies of terms. As a result, it will become its own opposite, over time, although the fundamental structure will remain.

A term that became popular in the last decade is "groupthink," referring to the social animal herd-tendency which causes people to bleat out dogma without having any idea of how to understand it. Like most pop-culture diagnoses, it favors an us/them approach which makes everyone in the room feel that, by comprehending the term, they have somehow surpassed all the others, and thus have found a new level of understanding. Yet even the term carries a weight of irony, in that not only can it be misinterpreted, but it can be a form of what it describes, by the very nature of this inclusive, devotional, just-sign-here access to what is perceived as absolute truth.

One seemingly ugly reality that confronts us as developed and not nascent beings is that in order to have civilization, or any kind of belief system, most of the people who work within that group have to be thinking on the same page. Of course, popular literature and movies find this appalling, since what happens to individuality? they cry. The grim face of it is that individuality as an absolute doesn't exist, in the sense that each person would be entirely a creation of their own impulse; this is bad math, which has an equation defining itself without reliance on its starting data or even on mathematics itself. This bad math holds that we are each self-creating gods, having no origin and no reality to which our ideas correspond, and that it's most important that we define ourselves apart from all others. Reality contradicts this.

In reality - that distant place where, when the ego-games of youth and pretense of adulthood are spent - we confront the actual mechanisms that sustain our world, and subsume our "it oughtta be this way" rhetoric to practical, this-is-how-we-survive concerns, for any consensus to exist there must be some degree of similar thinking. Obviously, there will always be critics who point to that and scream "groupthink!" and thus run off smugly congratulating themselves for being different and not falling into the herd, when they have no answers for what must be done as a collective, and thus are in denial of reality itself. This doesn't concern them - their whole agenda, literally, is to make themselves look good and thus to get ahead socially and politically. Obviously, these people are death for us all.

So some degree of group agreement is necessary, but is there a danger of groupthink as well? Certainly, and we cannot see it more clearly than in the Marxist and Rightist groups of today. These are composed of parrots, who rehash the same dogma in new forms but accept it unquestioningly and repeat it. There's a danger in that, in that these people do not understand what they parrot. In most cases, this isn't a problem, since most people lack the aptitude or dedication required to understand politics. When leaders succumb to this, however, a certain kind of spiritual death occurs, but even more importantly, a real-world crisis is engendered: they are no longer testing their ideas against reality, but are constructing castles in the sky and pointing to them saying, "well, it oughtta be" - this is the essence of academic Utopianism, and in the only view of history that matters, that which is measured over millennia and not decades, it is a form of calcification that might appear to be as lively and free-spirited as something else.

Critics - or those who passively point and try to tear down ideas, without suggesting anything to replace them except the airy dogma described above - are notorious for pointing out such groupthink, such conformity, and by finding it in some who uphold an idea using it to "discredit" that idea. Without individuality, they proclaim, there is nothing except groupthink, and therefore the whole concept reeks of submission and conformity, they argue, and therefore should be forgotten. They have forgotten however what philosophers have long learned, which is that any philosophy must pass its own tests. The finger pointers who scream "groupthink!," have, paradoxically, succumbed to groupthink itself by finding in anything but absolute granularity a viable solution.

Granularity is like group consensus; some of it is needed, but taken to a calcified extreme, it becomes death. The extreme of granularity is a popular social pose in almost any era, where people claim to take a little bit of this philosophy, and a little bit of that, and thus to have something "unique" to them which represents them and proves their worth, because after all, no single philosophy was good enough for them, so they must be master of all. This is little more than egomania. No civilization, or organization, can be founded on everyone thinking something different in all ways; that lack of consensus becomes a bickering family in which each member undoes the work of every other, fighting for personal control. Hilariously, the response of most granularists is to argue that such bickering is a sign of healthy government or salutory "diversity of discourse," but somehow, nothing ever changes because each individual is an island, caught up in arguing for his or her own form of control. Thus, business as usual goes on behind closed doors, while the drama of politics and leadership resolves nothing.

Clearly democracy belongs to this form of thinking, as it is based on the granular individual and the importance to the ego of having "individual" ideas and the freedom to "express oneself" by picking some "unique" recombination of philosophy to date and proclaiming that it and only it will suffice for that free-thinking, spirited, "different" individual. But what have democracies accomplished? Outside of the big questions, such as attacking when being attacked or dealing with tsunamis, democracies focus entirely inward and create more detailed bickering. As a result, they advance only the basic concepts of democracy, and miss all of the long-term issues of importance. What was democracy's plan for stopping deforestation? For protecting natural species? For ensuring we do not all become drones of a corporate feudal state? Answer: there was none, but there was plenty of diverse and unique discussion!

The greatest groupthink is granularity, as it rejects the idea that any consensus can occurr without "being" groupthink. I put the term "being" in quotes because, while x may "=" y, in real life things aren't so linear. Thus any consensus may include some groupthink, particularly among those who are incapable of any meaningful contribution; this is not terrible, as it turns them from agents of "unique" and divisive philosophies into those can find accord and act it. This could mean that, in contrast to the last 400 years of history, some sort of actual direction and philosophical unity might visit our civilization. We'd all have to give up the illusion of our "uniqueness," however, and realize that what makes us individuals is not some pretense of political activism, but our individual characters: how heroic we are, what tasks we can do well, our emotional makeup, and the like. You can't make an individual out of a political theory!

This is reality, and it will be called "groupthink" too, because nothing threatens each human as an island like something toward which their theories must correspond in actuality. Pragmatism, or simply, realism - what's wrong with it? We live in the same world, subject to the same natural laws. We have roughly the same bodies. Like it or not, the same forces act within us. Thus, for most decisions, we need roughly the same thing; that's the nature of consensus, and that's how civilizations are formed. This isn't as popular as the idea that we are each gods who think up airy rhetoric and make an individualistic self-image construction out of it. Naturally, the ability to fantasize without consequences is usually preferred to dealing with reality...

But reality it is, and is it so terrible? Once we get over our personal pretense, and that's really all it is, of being "different" for having selected a unique mix of products, friends, political ideologies, and reading matter, we can return to focus on ourselves as actual individuals, and to build up our character from within. Individualism is won by facing what you fear and overcoming it, by making yourself better in every way, and by doing what is right regardless of the cost to your physical life or pretense of uniqueness. You weren't created out of nothing, a god in your own right. No - you're a human being, with parents and history culminating in you. Is that so hard to face?

It's not an easy answer, the kind that occurs in a soundbite and sounds good to everyone, so the issue is dropped and we all go back to socializing. Thus, it's never popular. For many people, it demands the impossible, since they are in wheelchairs of a metaphorical or physical type, and cannot achieve greater character or deeds; however, for most of the people you or I would want to know, it's very possible, and when the misleading groupthink of anti-groupthink is revealed, they can get to work on the real character that underlies the public perception of their selves, something we call self-image. And what would we call this overcoming?

It's an end to passivity, for one thing. What is the opposite of passivity? Anything that is active - activity is a category which can include many items. However, the most basic form of active philosophy is realism, of which nihilism and existentialism and idealism are subsets. When you recognize that physical reality is the ultimate reality, and that all of our ideas must address practical solutions within it, you've taken a big step toward personal autonomy by casting aside the illusion that "unique" airy rhetoric somehow makes you distinct from the uncountable horde of others doing exactly the same thing. Anti-groupthink is the new groupthink, and it's part of the same error that got us into our current mess: being passive instead of active.

Active people do not fear agreeing with others. They are confident in how they perceive reality, and have made up their mins about what must be done, and thus do not fear doing it, even if (insert unpopular person here) advocated the same, or the idea is old, or it offends other people. They simply care about doing what is right in a realistic sense. This is the only way to truly cut out groupthink, because it removes a passive focus - caring about what other people think, or trying to belong to a group - and replaces it with a focus on the task. Any shared idea involves some agreement, but agreement is not groupthink, necessarily; however, agreement not to agree on anything for personal pretense always is. Next time you hear someone shriek "groupthink," ask yourself whether this person is looking at reality including the task, or just jerking off to make a higher self-image for themselves.


44699.349202516

BlogTerrorist said...

Why choose Satan over Jesus?

Consider- Satan has the traits of a hero. Rather than supinely lie down and accept subservience to another spirit, he followed his own path, that of a leader, even though it was not the sure and easy path. Consider the story of man's fall- Satan gave man knowledge, acting as the christian version of Prometheus. And yet the christians reject him, choosing the one that would keep them comfortably enslaved! And furthermore, they choose him so that when they die, they can live in numb enslavement for eternity!

Now consider- Jesus was an anti-hero. Too weak to exert change on the world himself, he was only able to martyr himself in the ultimate act of passive-agression and let others usurp the power balance. Is it any wonder why he should be rejected?
24356.8583376342

BlogTerrorist said...

Progress versus Getting it Right

A short note on the nature of life: all of what goes on in the human mind is pure creation, construction,
words and symbols and designs used to describe something that exists outside of our minds. That doesn't
mean that it isn't an objectively-functioning world out there; try putting your hand in a moving blender
and you'll see the world is very consistent in its actions. However, this world is sometimes maintained
by some very spacy ideas, like chaos theory or cosmic idealism, and may not even be "real" in any sense
of physical matter existing. However, insofar as events go on in it, it is "real" and you are subject to
the forces of its reality.

Being able to understand both the unreality of life, and its mundane but effective physicality, is the
essence of what is required to be a realist. Realists do not trouble themselves by trying to explain away
reality with bad science or bad religion. They look at the world, take good as well as bad, and adapt.
This is their ultimate game and goal and it makes sense, if one is a complex organism who cares about
function, to take this course of action.

Fools, on the other hand, either deny significance beyond the material, or assert the existence of some
fantasy world that is either more important than reality or "describes" reality in some way that is
assumed to be important. They confuse our evaluation of the world (mind) with its actuality (body), and
thus we call them dualists, a term that in itself is dual: dualists believe in a world beyond this one,
and most commonly construct it along the lines of mind/body separation. Those of us who are realists are
unitivists: we believe the physical world, our minds, and any significance or values abstracted from
those are part of a contiguous, rational system (although not rational in a linear sense).

Because I am a late-night psychopath reader who likes a good story more than the pretentious crap that
passes for literature of late (two exceptions: Tom Wolfe and William Gibson), I found myself digging into
"Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton. Yes, yes, I know, it's garbage - but only on the surface. Crichton's
goal, since the wildly successful "Andromeda Strain" that kept him from having to practice medicine, has
been to wrap a small amount of adventure around a discussion of scientific implications. Unlike most
scientists, with the possible exception of Carl Sagan, Crichton directs his critical eye not toward the
technology itself but toward its meaning via its effect on the world and our lives.

As such, he's both a brutal cynic, and a breathtaking concept writer, in that he grasps exactly what is
scaring us at any given time and explains it in such a way that those of average or higher IQ can
perceive its strengths and dangers. He's good at not becoming a hysterical liberal, but hasn't yet lapsed
into the complacent "as long as the stock market's still up" attitude of most American/English-style
"conservatives." What's great about this book is that he takes issue with modern society's explosion of
technology, and points out that no one considers the consequences.

Ian Malcolm, a (homosexual) British mathematician, is the voice of the author in this work; not only do
quotes from him introduce each chapter, but his lengthy monologues summarize one of the two major topic
areas of this book. The first, obviously, is genetic engineering - bringing an ancient form back to life.
It is counterbalanced by a study of chaos theory, in which Crichton attempts to explain how natural
systems work. The result shows hard science in the grips of forces its unleashers cannot understand,
namely the tendencies of systems to achieve and lose balance, and this metaphor forms the basis of
Crichton's lesson to modern science.

He uses harsh words for recent epochs. Most technical people and scientists are "thintelligent," Malcolm
says, meaning that they can function well in a high-intensity narrow bandwidth of thought, but are lost
to practical implications or systemic thinking. Crichton uses the words linear thinking several times,
and lambasts the west for adopting this form of thought, although he does not trace it to its
Jewish-Christian roots (Crichton grew up in a Jewish neighborhood in NYC, but seems to be a gentile). He
illustrates this crisis several times through the behavior of his characters, who are always just saying
"Well, now our technology is working again" when some dinosaur comes crashing through the wall and eats a
coworker.

It's a form of subtle comedy usually found in horror movies. Crichton makes his points, however, and
since this writing is not here to review the book, let us move on to the next point: Crichton also makes
a classic error of the type made by scientists and not philosophers, and it's nearly unforgivable. He
posits that linear science is "obsolete," and we need to move on, much as we moved on from medieval
times. In this, he reveals his ignorance by adhering to the progressive fallacy.

Espoused by Hegel, lambasted by Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and anyone else with a brain, the progressive
fallacy is that idea that we are always growing toward a "new" higher state of humankind. You can hear
echoes of this in the dumbshits who, if anything is proposed, state they don't want an existing path but
want something "new." It's also found extensively in media and commerce, which benefits quite a bit from
the automatic assumption that of two things, the newer one is better. In a book excoriating linear
science, how about some words for how stupid linear history is?

If one reads widely enough, and deeply enough, it becomes clear that history is linear only insofar as
our measurement of time is (whether time "really is" linear or not is for another debate - we perceive it
as linear; end of story). According to traditionalists and ancient sources, "history" is a process much
like the lives of individuals, by which civilizations are born, grow old and fat, and finally decay into
sordid collapse. Crichton alludes to a scientific version of this philosophy when he notes that
fluctuations in cotton prices over the last century mirror their vicissitudes during the course of an
average day. Why doesn't he again turn his mirror to history?

The answer is that like most of us moderns, he's well-educated in linear thinking in ways even he, not a
dumb man by any stretch, cannot recognize. He's like Hegel: a well-intentioned innocent who needed to be
more warlike and cruel in his thinking, slicing away the ideas that mostly made sense and replacing them
with ideas that always did. The progressive view of history is with us always, whether in television
commercials or political speeches. It's a convenient way of assuming that no one else has seen what we
have, and that we're "unique" in this time - all of which seems to me to be a way of staving off death.

Even if our technology never occurred on earth before, and our societies have encountered configurations
that did not previously exist, when looked at from a higher-level design analysis, nothing that is
happening now has not happened in the past - and the consequences of our now are just as obvious as they
were for past societies. It's another way of saying that, while the scenery might change, the play
doesn't - the emotions and motivations of the actors are as real in one time as in another. Thus what
ancient Greeks observed is still observable and relevant today, as are observations that are much older.

What Crichton bemoans - our tendency to see the world only through the eyes of science, and thus how we
can change raw materials into some kind of product - has its roots in many things. How to explain that?
Quite simply: it's a lower level of thinking than the enlightened thinking required to see what must be
done. When one gets over the linear model of history, and sees past the "progressive" view, it becomes
clear that there are no "new" thoughts, only thoughts in new contexts with varying degrees of correct and
incorrect adaptation to our situation. This is realism, and only in realism do we find an escape from the
twin barriers of materialism and dualistic idealism.

I could wax on with more philosophical terms, but you can look them up - I recommend the Cambridge
Encyclopedia of Philosophy and an Oxford English Dictionary, for starters (if not, there's SEP). At some
point even talking too much on any topic makes it wanking, as one either is able to see the truth of the
situation, or casting around blindly - more of something (experience, wisdom, intelligence, time) is
needed. Part of what Crichton's saying that is also being said in this article is simply that life is
real, and when we make decisions, we should place the airy logic secondary to a practical view of life as
something in which we live.

Crichton points out that we cannot destroy life on earth, which is a way of saying that, no matter how
much humanity screws up, life will come back, although it will not be as developed as as great as what we
have now; it's a backhanded slam at humanity's recklessness. In saying this, he communicates something
important: we should make the right decisions for our own benefit, as right now, we're in a
self-destructive tailspin of bad values. Having now experienced enough of life, both sane (good) and
insane (destructive), I can say that I prefer sane because destructive values always lead to devolution
and thus more boring existences.

Further, if Crichton ever transcends his linear view of history, he'll come upon a great truth of our
world: to live as a Romantic is the only way to live, and if one is a Romantic, one does not hunger for
"new" things, but for what is eternally true. One does not need the "progressive" view of history in
order to realize that a well-fought battle, a lifelong love, a feast of friends, etc. is an eternally
good - sane, adaptive, evolutionary, logical - thing. We rail against "good" and "evil" because they
remove judgment from practicality into some weird abstraction, and from that we get a progressive view of
history, moving from ancient evil to modern good. I wish the dinosaurs would tear that one down and throw
it into the fires, as humanity would be healthier if in its absence it instead focused on reality.

July 17, 2005
54356.6927486346

BlogTerrorist said...

Adam Yahiye (Y.A.) Gadahn: An Appeal

This is an open letter to the American people regarding Adam Yahiye Gadahn, and his recent addition to
the terrorist threat list by the FBI. Unlike most of the documents on this site, it is a plea for
"walking around in the other guy's shoes."

I never met Y.A. Gadahn face-to-face, but I knew him through his contributions to my radio show. When I
last spoke to him, back in the 1990s, he created several fliers for the show, and helped out with
numerous music programming suggestions. I remember him as a passionate, courteous, intelligent kid
excited about life, but somewhat cowed by its unnecessary human-induced dark side, thus prone to
listening to lots of quality death metal.

Call it compassion, or call it empathy, but a lot of kids like Y.A. Gadahn resonated with me in spirit.
They came from dark homes where overworked parents (if they were lucky - often a single parent) drove
long hours to labor in the bowels of the city-machine, and came home with no energy for their kids.
Brainless, authoritarian public schools. Neurotic adults who couldn't explain why all of this was
important. An increasingly-restrictive republic whose electorate seemed uninformed as to the actual
issues. A natural world being consumed and turned into strip malls at an alarming rate.

I think this future is what alarms a lot of us, patriotic Americans and al-Qaeda radicals alike. The idea
that maybe we're speeding toward something we can't control, that we can't undo. The thought that as our
obsession with money and power reaches new heights, we'll forget nature, and will also forget there's
another way outside our dark thorny path of righteousness.

I don't believe al-Qaeda is evil, and I don't believe George Bush is illegal. I definitely don't believe
A.Y. Gadahn is "evil," or even ill-intentioned. I think he's a sincere guy like any number of others you
may have grown up next door to, worked a cube over from, spent time guffawing with at a baseball game. I
knew him as a normal kid, with normal desires and normal fears, including a growing dread of what "modern
life" has become.

Because of this, today, I ask for your compassion, and for your consideration of a singular thought: it
could be there are no "good guys" and "bad guys" here, but that we, as a society have lost our way and
need to re-invent our values. Where we once had a goal in overcoming nature, we now have no goals except
those in society itself... money, power, look-at-me social importance.

More than any tangible political goals, I think it's the goal of al-Qaeda and other dissident groups
(including ANUS, the GNAA, and Abrupt) to resist that coming darkness. It might not yet have stamped its
consequences onto our foreheads, but it's like that day in school when your teacher is delayed in
conference and you and your friends spend the first twenty minutes of class raising hell: this can't end
well. Ultimately, there will be a piper to pay.

Your oceans are choked with plastic. Your air, awash in chemicals. Your cities wastelands of crime and
look-a-like plastic storefronts. Your children, alienated and lonely in dysfunctional families, broken
social relationships, and prisonlike schools.

Before you ride another normal guy into the ground so he can be worked over by military intelligence, I
ask you this: consider an option.

Do it for A.Y. Gadahn, or do it for whatever ideals you hold dearest, or do it for yourself, but do it.
Resist. With reason, passion and the knowledge that it doesn't have to be this way.

Sincerely,
Spinoza Ray Prozak
41849.7515681308

BlogTerrorist said...

Ya, sure, I did it and it felt good, wasting a bunch of niggers in school. I also did plenty of nigger-loving race-traitors. The killing seemed so unreal: Wounded black bodies twisted in pain howling in screams for mercy, I soon put them out of their misery.

I Stanford Malicor was born May 16, 1984 in a town of about 30,000 located in Mississippi. I have no brothers or sisters. My mom, Janice, works as a local restaurant as a bartender. She works hard but can be exceptional bitchy at times. My Dad has been a deputy sheriff for about 14 years. He is a good dad and treats me well, when he isn't getting drunk and knocking around mom and me.

Dad was bad but his abuse didn't cause me to dismiss all the niggers in class. My school life had been crap for years: While in the sixth grade, some crypt gang-bangers started to spread rumors that I enjoyed taking dick up the butt. I guess they thought they would get popular by harassing the alleged "school fag."

I got in a fight with a couple of the rumor spreading niggers but the stories grew worse. My next five years of school was filled with nearly constant mental abuse and the daily ritual of beatings from the chimpmen gangs. I sure the hell didn't want to pack some butt, but the facts didn't matter to the niggers.

Sometimes I prayed for death.

As a cop, dad loved to collect all types of cool weapons. He took me shooting many times; I learned to respect the power of a gun. Dad kept all the stuff in two gun safes in our basement.

It was so cool, my dad had all that good cop stuff: handguns, assault-rifles, shotguns, teargas canisters, etc... Dad's friends on the force had nicknamed him "Officer Rambo". The weapons were always kept locked up and only dad had the key. It was no big deal that we owned guns: we lived in a area where everyone enjoyed firearms.

Few knew that my dad was also a high ranking member in the Almira Knights of The KKK. Dad had no love for niggers but he had to act like it and he played the part very well, when he wasn't beating up niggers for resisting arrest.

I never before considered killing anything or anyone until we got a DBS TV system at home and I started watching CNN. TV news showed me the quickest way to fame: pull the trigger on some subhuman students that deserved to die. Waste yourself a bunch of scumbags and you are instantly a TV celebrity. As time passed I continued to intensely study the reports of school shootings. looking for the best plan: the most kills with the least risk.

The abuse at school was becoming intolerable, the niggers refined torture into a fine art. I sentenced the black bastards to death and started making plans to kill them all.

I still needed a whole lot of guns to accomplish the goal but dad kept the firearms locked up all the time. It took some careful planning, but I did score; I switched dad's gun safe key with a look alike key Sunday morning as he was passed out from the usual vodka binge.

Later that evening, I hid the guns in a ravine next to the school.

Monday was like any other day except that some stoned sambo kicked me in the balls, it didn't hurt much, guess I was getting used to it.

Before 5th period was over I ran from my last class with my teacher screaming "Where are you going?" Quickly I sprinted to my guns stash and began arming. I recovered my dad's M-16 assault-rifle and snapped in a full 120 round drum magazine. I also put on a load bearing vest stuffed with three thirty round magazines and a loaded handgun.

Finally, I put on a backpack containing three recently assembled pipe bombs, wrapped in nails and coated in poison. Nice and deadly surprises for any unlucky soul that got between me and my targets.

I had a copy of the terrorists handbook printed out from the internet. Thanks to the Almira Public Library's free internet computers for the public, I know how to build the most lethal of destructive devices.

Running at full speed while loaded down with gear was quite difficult. I was very careful not to be seen until it was too late for the coons. The plan was to attack just right after school, when all the niggers were getting out of class. The moment of vengeance was at hand!

As the bell ringed the monkeys came out. I ran from my hiding place, holding the M-16 at hip level, and positioned myself in front of the sub-human trash. It was time to send these niggers back to hell from where they came. I held down the trigger and sprayed full-auto hollow-point bullets into the black mass.

I can remember the overwhelming rush of pleasure as the first africans were ripped apart. It felt like I was in A theatre watching, in slow motion, a movie of myself making many bodies.

It was grand: all the niggers in front of me screamed and dropped like flies. Those who could, ran back into school with a horrified look of terror on their faces. I stopped shooting, just for a second, because I just had to laugh. All the pain and misery these inferiors had caused me and I was returning it back to them! I squeezed the trigger again and finished off the few nigs who were still alive. Blood from the dead sambos begin flowing into a storm drain as I emptied the drum magazine.

I then reloaded with a 30round banana clip, it was time to move my killing party elsewhere. Leaving the screaming wounded, and the silent dead, I proceeded into the school to shoot any black bastards I could find. For the first time in my life I was truly alive!

The teachers were hiding inside various classrooms like scared rats but it made little difference. My constant assault-rifle fire found human targets.

Black or white didn't matter. These teaching fools had for years poisoned the minds white kids with their diversity race-mixing bullshit. Time for the white race-traitors to die also.

What a pleasure it was killing these people! In the past the faculty had ignored the abuse. Afraid of being labeled "racist" the teachers usually let the niggers run free, like the animals they are, and the whites were the victims.

The air then filled with the sounds of sirens as the cop cars got closer. It was time to move. I proceeded to quench the nearly white hot M-16 machinegun barrel in the vagina of my wounded black English teacher. That sure was more fun than diagramming sentences.

Discarding the M-16, I grabbed my pipe bombs and handgun to waste the pigs.

I waited in ambush behind a blood drenched shrub as three coppers pulled up in their shiny cars. The first car exploded in a ball of fire as an accurately tossed a pipe bomb landed underneath the car, igniting the gas tank. The concussion from the blast knocked me to the ground.

I next shot a nigger piggy in the head with my dad's backup service revolver, while the apeman lay wounded from the pipe bomb blast. However the third piggy was stubborn coonboy and he took my last two pipe bombs to finish off.

It was time to cruise, I ran to my stashed motorcycle and got the hell out of there. While driving off I could still hear the shattered screams of dieing niggers twisting in the grass.

All together it was a great day of racial purifications!

That was the most fun I ever had and hope that other White Power kids get even. Their is no better feeling in the world than spraying lead into a nigger or race-traitor who deserves it, it is a far better choice than suicide!64174.4047533826

BlogTerrorist said...

Radical Traditionalism and Nihilism

One lesson we should all learn early in life is that if what you're doing is not working, consider another method. This does not mean at the first sign of negative feedback, give up and do something different; it means that, if over time, what you are doing is not producing the desired results, change strategy. Square peg not fitting in round hole? You may have to think outside of your immediate task (cramming square peg in round hole) to the larger task at hand (which pegs go into which holes). This sounds so basic and fundamental, yet it is forgotten by most.

No clearer example of this can be felt in politics. Extreme leftists rant and cry in public, but in private spend much of their time bemoaning that few are involved, and wondering how to compel people to get involved. Environmentalists are known for being maudlin drunks who break into tears at the thought that most people don't care at all about the environment, with their proof for this supposition being the lack of mainstream involvement in their effete and radicalized groups. Similarly, what's left of conservatism - not bloody much - tends to wring its hands over the absolute disinterest that youth have for the conservative agenda.

Another potent example within politics is white nationalism. The WNs crowd around the fire, proclaim loudly their dogma, and then wait for the crowd to fall into step behind them for the final glorious race war. And why are they still alone, these brave WNs? The answer is quite simple: like liberals, they're a one-note party, and while they understand their own dogma, they don't understand how to apply it. The result is a radicalized, paranoid group of people who have no practical plan, and cannot even organize their own minds in order to organize their own political actions. (There are three real exceptions: Overthrow.com, Vanguard News, and the LNSGP, out of thousands of WN/NS groups.)

From my perspective, it's a pathetic state of affairs that both those who uphold our traditions and those who wish to protect our environment are afflicted by the same mental disease. When one looks at the ideals of environmental and white nationalist groups philosophically, it's clear that they are the two most related forms of belief out there today. Both are preservationists who seek to limit the selfishness agenda of modern society, and replace it not with bureaucracy but with a values system - a values system we share in common, in dramatic contrast to pluralistic systems, where the only shared value is a belief in pluralism. Both of these genres of politics could be easily drawn back from failure if they were willing to acknowledge what they lack.

As said above, it's simple: one has to organize a clear political platform that includes all aspects of the political system, and then organize one's agenda so as to contribute to society while reshaping it into something better. This means that one cannot speak up for green agendas alone, or ethnic preservation agendas (of which white nationalism is one) alone, but one must find some comprehensive way to remake society into something saner. One such method is to re-group white nationalism and environmental protection into the most time-proven system of governance we have, which is described as "tradition" because there is no other word for it. It's a viewpoint that is outside of the modern viewpoint, but since the modern viewpoint could be summarized as cramming square pegs in round holes, we might characterize tradition as a broader mindset in which one can correctly identify what shape of peg goes into what hole.

Tradition refers to the ways in which our societies (in this case, Indo-European; the author is Indo-European) have existed for millennia, and is an all-encompassing viewpoint. It is not just political, or philosophical, or economic, or religious, but all of these. Its genesis is an awareness of humankind's position not in a physical-economic order, but in a cosmic order, or in the patterns of life we find both in nature and in our own minds. In philosophical terms, traditionalism is a form of cosmic idealism, which means that it is a belief system where design-change in the external world (winning a battle, creating an idea, composing a symphony) is more important than personal comfort or survival; cosmic idealism is a dramatic contrast to Judaic moralism, as found in Christianity and liberalism, in which personal comfort and survival are more important than anything else (the one exception being, of course, when one fights for the "right" to live according to Judaic morality, at which point suicide and vengeance are celebrated as positive values).

Radical Traditionalism is a view of tradition from within a modern time. It recognizes that, in order to escape the modern crisis, we must first escape the modern mindset; this is the "radical" part, which means a total divorcing of values and expectations from what modernity has to offer. Radical in this context does not (necessarily) mean extremist action, but it means thought extremely removed from the norm. For most people living in a modern time, the concept of tradition is not one that makes sense on the first read, or the second, but sometime in the days following a reading after those. This is the barrier that radicalism is designed to transcend. As a natural consequence of this, Radical Traditionalist belief may seem "radical" to those in a modern time because it is far beyond what they are trained to comprehend.

Radical Traditionalism is a good solution because, unlike other political agendas which hope to make a few small alterations and then declare victory and go home, Radical Traditionalism recognizes the need to start thinking much differently about how we do things. It would take the entirety of our modern world and remake it into something more sensible, without abandoning our technology (although certainly limiting its use). Furthermore, Radical Traditionalism doesn't confine itself to race, although race is an inseparable part of the ideology. It doesn't confine itself to environmentalism, although concern and nurturing for our environment is an essential part of Radical Traditionalism. It is a holistic philosophy in that it addresses all human endeavors, and does so not from the perspective of the individual or of the collective, but of the whole: it places human individuals, collectives, and even our planet into a greater cosmic order.

This cosmic order, unlike those of humankind, is based upon pre-existing patterns found in nature. It is not arbitrary, like communism, nor of a one-track mind, like capitalism or any other state based on economic competition. It is not founded in the concept of dominion by the self over nature, nor does it pit humanity against its natural world. And, unlike white nationalism, its view of race is flexible; Radical Traditionalists believe races should be preserved, as racial differences are manifestations of a cosmic order called "karma" by some which is a spiritual approximation of what we know as evolution. Unlike moderns, traditionalists see evolution as a two-way street: one can evolve toward something higher, or devolve toward something more base and less noble. Naturally, they see the modern time as an example of the latter, and most credible evidence agrees with them.

Ultimately, however, despite its focus on cosmic ideals, Radical Traditionalism has a big leg over modernity in that it focuses on reality. Not simply physical reality, meaning the tangible things in front of us, but the reality of how our universe and physical environment operates. It doesn't substitute spacy "ideology" for knowledge, and it doesn't sidetrack itself into fighting for equality among people of varied abilities. Modern belief systems tend to take the form of "we should do (action) because (ideal)," but in tradition, the ideal is life itself, and what should be done is what is effective given how this order of life itself operates.

In this, Radical Traditionalism is similar to one type of nihilism. Since the word "nihilism" means different things to different people, it is important to define this type of nihilism as an outlook and a perceptual tool, not a conclusion or an ideal. Those who hold Nothingness up as an ideal, and as an assessment of life itself, are probably better referred to as "fatalists" because they do not believe any value can be found, and therefore believe their choices are irrelevant (a fancy way of giving up). Outlook nihilists believe nihilism is a way of removing illusion and looking into reality itself, from which we are separated by the frailty of (a) our own perception and (b) the errors of our interpretation of external reality. Where conclusion-nihilists take up nihilism as a means of ending further analysis of their existence, outlook nihilists use it as a means to look deeper into existence.

Nihilism of this form could be expressed this way: Upon waking up, I realized that nothing had any inherent value except for its presence as part of reality itself, such as a chair being useful for sitting upon, or food useful for eating because eating prolongs life and thus perception. While I was tempted to stay in this valueless state, I realized that to uphold a valueless state was in itself a value, therefore a valueless state cannot exist for long. For this reason, instead of rejecting reality, I rejected values outside of reality, and now try to see things only for what they are. This is the outlook nihilism of an experienced person.

Fatalism, or conclusion-nihilism, is solely the realm of life's failures. People who cannot make heads or tails of life, and have failed to find a place within it, find refuge in claiming that it never made any sense anyway and therefore they cannot be expected to participate - as if some cosmic parent were watching over them, trying to force them into it. People of this mindset are clearly quite lost, as they have not realized that their lives are their own and exist without need of interpretation, and furthermore, they've lost the ability to see the world beyond their own little existence. It may be that not all of them are stupid - most are simply misguided, and young, and underconfident, if not outright deficient. Those who haven't grown out of fatalism by their thirties are probably mental defectives.

When we look at nihilism and radical traditionalism, what jumps out at us is that both are ways of negating the values we have in a modern time and returning to a cosmic order based on the actual function of our reality. There is no morality in either that places the individual higher than a noble task; the opposite is true, since a nihilist recognizes that morality is not inherent and basically wishful thinking by those who fear they might succumb to violence. Radical Traditionalism, like nihilism, emphasizes a quieting of the internal dialogue over how to value life, and takes life at face value: things are simply what they are.

These forms of thinking are far more advanced than what most believe in a modern time. Most of the trousered apes of modernity have been taught that, thanks to technology and morality, we are slowly leaving a dark age behind and coming into a utopic state. This kind of worldview is called a "progressive" one, in that it believes in progress from a bad state to a good state. Radical Traditionalism and Nihilism shrug aside such concerns by recognizing that the basic dimensions of life remain as they always have been, and no new choices outside of technology have been presented to us. Evolve or devolve. It's all a factor of reality, no matter what moral excuses or numbers on spreadsheets we construct to support our own desires for what reality "should" be.

These beliefs are of the type that will dominate in the future. Humanity has had a thousand year hiatus from reality, first in the form of revolt by the masses, then via religious delusion and Judeo-Christianity, and finally through our economies, free enterprise, suburbs and wealth derived from fossil fuels. However, true to form, the delusional system of modernity brought us to a number of bad mistakes, and the end result has been the squandering of our fossil fuels and continued degeneration of our societies. Therefore, as the illusion ends, we return to common sense. If we want this common sense to succeed, we need holistic ideologies such as Radical Traditionalism and Nihilism to take the place of one-note philosophies like White Nationalism and Environmentalism, as they only increase divisions among us.

June 1, 2005 4597.007676332

BlogTerrorist said...

What do you call African engineering?
A Nigger-rig!

What is the best way to blow a gang-nigger?
Pack his fat lips full of gunpowder and light his AFRO on fire!

How do you tell if a gangbanger is well hung?
When you can't get more than two fingers between the rope and it's neck.

What do you get when you cross a nigger and a gorilla?
A real stupid gorilla!

How do you stop 5 niggers from raping a white woman?
Toss the apes a basketball or shoot them!

Why are all niggers so fast?
Because all the slow ones are in jail.

Why did they only count 500,000 niggers at the million man march?
Forgot to look in the trees.

What do niggers and apples have in common?
Both look dammed good hanging from trees!

What's the difference between dog shit and niggers?
When dog shit gets old it turns White and quits stinking.

What do you call a nigger in a tree with a briefcase?
Branch manager.

How do you stop a nigger from drowning?
Take your foot off the back of his head.

What do you get when you cross a retard with a gang banger?
Someone who spray paints on a chain link fence.

Why do niggers stink?
So blind people can hate them too.

What do you get when you cross a nigger and a spic?
Someone too lazy to steal.

Why don't niggers take aspirin?
They refuse to pick the cotton out.

What do nigger kids get for Christmas?
Your bike.

Why don't nigger kids play in the sandbox?
Cats keep covering them up.

What do you call an apartment full of niggers?
A COON-dominium.

Why do niggers keep chickens in their back yards?
To teach their kids how to walk.

How do you know Adam and Eve were not black?
You ever try to take a rib from a nigger?

What is a nigger?
Proof that skunks fuck monkeys.

What do you call an Ethiopian with a pickle on his head?
A quarter-pounder.

What do you get when you cross a nigger and a chink?
A ape that eats a hell of a lot of rice.

How do you get 20 niggers into the backseat of a Yugo?
Toss in a welfare check!

What is always the best way to look at a gangster nigger?
Through a rifle scope!

What was missing from the million man march? 30 miles of chain and an auctioneer.

How do u save a drowning nigger?
You don't.

What do u throw a drowning nigger?
Wife and kids.

How do u drown a nigger?
Pop his lip.

Why do niggers have upturned pig noses?
That�s where God held them when he painted them.

Why are their no niggers in the cartoon the Flintstones?
Because they were still monkeys at that time.

What do you get when you cross a nigger and a wetback?
A monkey that speaks spanish.

Why did the nigger cross the road?
To sell crack to the children at the other school.

What did the 13 yr. old nigger whore say while screwing?
Get off me daddy your crushing my cigarettes!

Why do gangbangers call European-Americans whitey?
Because that�s the last sound they hear as whitey runs them over!

What do you get when you cross a nigger and a jew?
A mulatto conman.

Whats the difference between good niggers and bad niggers?
Good niggers are locked up in the medium security prison.

What�s a real good way to kill a nigger?
Toss a bucket of chicken into the middle of the freeway!

Why did God give niggers big dicks?
As a way to say "sorry" for putting pubes on their heads! -igor

Why do niggers wear wide brimmed hats?
So birds won't shit on their lips!

Why was white chocolate invented?
So nigger kids could get messy too!

What do you call a niggers car?
A 'blood vessel'.


What do you call 1,000 niggers going down a hill?
A mudslide!

What do Nikes and the KKK have in common?
They both make niggers run fast!

Why is there no black Miss America pageant?
Nobody want's to be Ms. Idaho!

What do you get when you cross a nigger and a gorilla?
A dumb gorilla!

What do you call a nigger having sex?
Rape!

How many polacks does it take to clean a bathroom?
None, it's a niggers job!

White folks aren't racist . .
. . we've all got colored TV's!

Why do niggers hate asperin?
Because it's white and it works!

A nigger walks into a bar and says, "Yo! Where do all the homies hang?". The bartender says, "out there", pointing to a tree in the back.

What do you call an Ethiopian on a hunger strike?
An Ethiopian!

How many niggers does it take a shingle a roof?
It depends how thin you slice them!

How do you get a nigger out of a tree?
Cut the rope!

Why don't nigger babies play in sandboxes?
Cats keep trying to bury them!

What do you call 60,000 niggers on a plane heading back to Africa?
A good start!

What do you call a nigger hiding in the woods?
A brown recluse!

What do you call a black bowling ball?
A nigger egg.

What did God say when he made the first nigger?
Oops! I put the pubes on his head!

What was missing from the Million Man March?
About a thousand miles of chain and an auctioneer!

What do Confederates do on the New Year?
Shoot niggers with roman candles and throw Confetti!

How do you get a nigger to wear a condom?
Put a Nike logo on it!

How do you keep a nigger bitch pleased?
Give her some fried chicken!

What happened when the Nigger looked up his family tree?
A gorilla shat on his face!

What do you call a busload of niggers going off a cliff
with one empty seat?
A crying shame!

What do you call 1,000 niggers at the bottom of the sea?
A good start!

What did God say when he made the first nigger?
Oops! Burnt another one!

Why haven't any niggers died from West Nile virus?
Mosquitos don't land on shit, only flies do!

How do you stop a nigger from going out?
Use more napalm!

What�s the best way to keep gangbangers out of your backyard?
Hang one in the front yard!

What do you get when you cross a nigger and a faggot?
African shitdick.



What should you do if you accidentally run over a nigger?
Throw the truck into reverse!

How many niggers does it take to roof a house?
8 if you cut the apes just right!

Why do whites shop at nigger yard sales?
To get back their possessions.

What is the safest place to be during a nigger-riot?
At work because Niggers are lazy!

What do you call 4 niggers at the bottom of the ocean?
Pollution!

What do you call 40,000 niggers at the bottom of the ocean?
solution!

How many Ethiopians can you fit in a phone booth?
All of them.

How do you start a foot race in Ethiopia?
Roll a doughnut down the street.

How many niggers does it take to pave a driveway?
One if you spread him real thin.

When does a Black man turn into a nigger?
As soon as he leaves the room.

What do you call a nigger with a Harvard education?
Nigger.

Why don't nigger women wear panties to picnics?
To keep the flies off the chicken.

Why does Alabama have niggers and California have earthquakes?
California got first pick.

Did you hear that the KKK bought the movie rights to Roots?
They're going to play it backwards so it has a happy ending.

What is the difference between a white owl and a black owl?
A white owl goes, "Who, who," a black owl goes, "Who dat? Who dat?"

Did you hear about the new Black Barbie?
It comes with 12 kids, AIDS and a welfare check.

What is black, white, and rolls off the end of the pier?
A nigger and a seagull fighting over a chicken wing.

Why do niggers walk the way they do?
Because they spent the first nine months of their lives
dodging a coat hanger.

Do you remember the nigger family on the Jetsons? No?
The future looks pretty good!

Did you hear about the nigger that thought he was bleeding to death?
Turns out he just had diarrhea.

What do you call two nigger cops on motorcycles?
Chocolate chips.

Why don't niggers celebrate Thanksgiving?
KFC isn't open on holidays.

Why do niggers like basket ball?
It involves running, shooting and stealing.

What has four legs and a black arm?
A happy pitbull.

How do you know if a nigger is well hung?
If you can't fit your finger between his neck and the noose.

How is a nigger like a broken gun?
It doesn't work and you can't fire it.

What do you call 5 niggers hanging from a tree?
A Mississippi wind chime.

Why did the nigger cross the road?
Who the fuck cares why is he out of the cotton field?

What do you call a white man surrounded by 100 niggers?
Warden.

Do you know why flies have wings?
So they can get away from the niggers.

How do you baby-sit a baby nigger?
Wet the animals lips and stick it to a window!

How many niggers does it take to screw in a light bulb?
One to hold it in the socket and wait for the world to revolve around him.

What do you get when you cross a nigger and a indian?
An Alcoholic chimp.

What is tattooed inside every niggers lip?
inflate to 80 P.S.I.!

What is the difference between an old nigger bitch and a elephant?
About twenty pounds!

What do you call a nigger with a peg leg?
Shit on a stick! -joe

Why do niggers always have sex on their minds?
Because they have pubes on their heads! -Bo

What does Pontiac stand for?
Pool Old Nigger Thinks It's A Cadillac!

Did you hear the one about . .
. . the baby nigger who went to heaven and got his wings? He said, "God! Look! I'm an angel!", and God said, "No you stupid nigger! You're a bat, now eff off!"

I like black people . . .
. . I used to have some black friends 'till my dad sold them!

What does a nigress and an ice hockey player have in common?
They both change their pads after 3 periods! -ashmoor

Why do black people have white hands?
They were up against the wall when God spray painted them!

Why do black people have white hands?
Everyone has some good in them!

Why do black people have white hands?
It rubs off the cop cars!

Why do more niggers get hit by cars in the winter?
They're easier to spot!

What do you call two blacks on one bike?
Organized crime!

Why are niggers getting stronger?
T.V.s are getting bigger!

What happened to the nigger who had an abortion?
Crime Stoppers sent her a check for $500! -tim

Why don't nigger bitchs wear panties to picnics?
To keep the flies away from the chicken! -michael

What's the difference between a truck full of baby niggers and a truck full of bowling balls?
You can't unload a truck full of bowling balls with a pitchfork!

What does FUBU stand for?
Farmers Used to Buy Us

What does FUBU stand for?
Farmers Used to Beat Us

Why don't sharks eat niggers?
They think its whale shit!

Why do niggers call white people "honkies"?
Thats the last sound they hear before they get hit! -davey

What do they do with dead niggers in California?
Gut them to make wetsuits!

Why does L.A. have so many fags and N.Y. so many niggers?
L.A. had first choice!

What do you call a chinese nigger with AIDS?
Coon Die Soon

What does NAACP stand for?
Niggers Against All Caucasian People

What does NAACP stand for?
Now Apes Are Called People -Brando

Why do police dogs lick their asses so much?
To get the taste of nigger out of their mouths!

What do niggers say while having sex?
If you�s scream white bitch I�s kill ya!



What is the difference between a nigger and a snow tire?
Snow tires don�t sing when you slap the chains on them.

What do you call a nigger with a I.Q. of 15?
Gifted.

A nigger with a I.Q. of 150?
Tribe.

What�s the definition of the great American dream?
All the niggers go back to Africa with a mexican and a jew under each arm.

What do you call 100 parachuting niggers?
Skeet!

What's the difference between a truckload of nigger babies and a truckload of bowling balls?
You can't unload the bowling balls with a pitchfork!

What�s black, tan, brown and red?
My Doberman chewing up a gangbanger.

Why did all the niggers really die in Vietnam?
When the Sergeant said: "get down!" The niggers started to dance.

What's green, pink and purple and orange?
A nigger all dressed up for church!

How do you tell that a nigger was shot in the head?
By the hole in his ghetto-blaster!

How many men does it take to carry a niggers coffin?
Eight, six to carry the coffin and two to carry the ghetto-blaster!

Why did the ape commit suicide?
He heard that he might have evolved from a nigger!

How do you get the gangbanger out of a tree?
cut the rope!

What do the skins and steroids have in common?
Both make niggers run real fast!

What do you say to a nigger in a three piece suit?
"Will the defendant please rise."

What is the difference between a dead dog in the road and a dead gangbanger?
Skid marks in front of the dog; burn out patch in front of the gangbanger!

Why did "Wacko Jacko" go to Kmart?
Because he heard that little boys pants were half off!

What do you call one white guy surrounded by three niggers?
Victim!

Why don�t sharks attack niggers?
Sharks think that niggers are whale shit!

How was break dancing first invented?
Little gang-niggers trying to steal hubcaps off moving cars!

How many gang-bangers does it take to paint a wall?
One if you throw the monkey hard enough!

What's the best way to starve a nigger?
Hide the monkeys food stamps under his work boots!

What do you call a unborn baby nigger?
Janitor in a can!

Why did god give niggers rhythm?
Because he fucked up their hair, nose and lips.

Why are so many niggers moving to Detroit?
They heard there were no jobs there.

Why can't nigger women become nuns?
Because they can't get used to saying 'superior' after 'Mother'.

How do you fit 15 niggers in the back of a Cadillac?
Don't worry, they'll figure it out.

What's yellow and black and makes you laugh ?
A bus full of niggers going over a cliff.

Why are niggers always buried 12 feet deep?
Deep down they're good people.

What's the difference between a porch monkey and a yard ape?
The length of the chain.

What's black, orange, and very pretty?
A nigger on fire.

How does the navy use niggers?
They debone them and use them as wetsuits.

What does Pontiac stand for?
Poor Old Niggers Think Its A Cadillac.

What is the primary reason for the US prison system?
Nigger control! 86627.2900667176

BlogTerrorist said...

Low Biological Quality of Humankind

It's taboo to even mention a range of topics, because they'll make some people feel uncomfortable. Having
seen how well this empire of not offending some people has steered us into an ecocidal evolutionary dead
end, I'm not inclined to care: their empire failed, in a way that ancient civilization and the NSDAP
could not (you'll recall that many great artists are only discovered after life has defeated them and
buried them in pauper's graves; so it will be with tradition).

How did their empire come about? Impetus toward creating civilization was lost, because civilization
itself got wealthy and powerful. The parasites came in, and seduced the women and compassionate men, who
rapidly gave way to "new" ideas (there are no new ideas, only good ones or bad ones; originality is a
separate concept, and applies to how well you describe an idea in art or discourse). These "new" ideas
consisted mainly of vast profit to be made by manipulating hordes of dumber people.

Over time, because the fundamental assumption of these "new" ideas was a lack of responsibility to the
unitive whole of nature and cosmos and humankind, as was provided by the religion-philosophies of ancient
civilizations, these philosophies expanded scope (as all philosophies tend to do; it's a "slippery slope"
argument that applies in every case) and came to include the empowerment of the general masses. This
meant giving them a vote equal to that of people who were smarter, healthier and of better moral
character than they.

Herein was the disaster.

At this point, you have a society which promotes dumb, ugly and destructive people over those who have
more beneficial traits, simply because dumb, ugly and destructive people have a need to disunitively make
profit at the expense of others. Most people who were born into a bad body/mind tend to be destructive,
and if they're smarter than the absolute bottom, they become shrewd because that allows them to be
remarkably intellectually effective - albeit within a narrow and meaningless space. They become experts
at making money, usually through sleazy means, as did the Snopes family in Faulkner's "The Hamlet."

Soon the dumb, ugly and mean guys get the pretty girls, because no matter how disgusting you are as a
person, if you have wealth, well, in a society of equals that's the most important thing, and therefore
you'll be a good parent. Your kids will probably be wealthy too. Over many generations, this equates into
a dying out of the better people and the promotion of the greedy, stupid, violent, etc. In short, it's
counter-evolution, or a destruction of what evolution has done through greed and egoism, which as you can
see are the motivating forces behind "equality."

At this point, most people are of low biological quality, as measured in the three indexes:

# Intelligence. Whether you measure it with an IQ test, or watching them in a revelatory activity,
intelligence can be measured, although you usually have to be at least as intelligent as what you're
measuring to get any kind of exact figure (this explains high school guidance counselors and their
destructive, weird and revengeful decisions, doesn't it?). However, intelligence is an inborn property.
You do not get a genius out of a turnip-picker, no matter what the popular media says. Find some genius
born "magically" to two stupid parents and you'll either find an adoption or a genius grandparent.

# Health and Beauty. People who are well-formed, who are naturally healthy and who tend toward healthy
decisions are usually the most physically able. They may not be great athletes in a specialized sport,
but in terms of general ability to do things like get around and survive in a forest or battle, they're
absolutely qualified (note that many major league players would not qualify, as the history of athletes
in combat bears out). People who are well-bred tend to have health and beauty as well as intelligence and
moral character.

# Moral character. This is a difficult definition, but a good starting point is this: one's natural
inclinations and values are inborn, although they can be changed by post-birth treatment, especially
abuse. These inborn tendencies where they touch on ethical questions form one's moral character. By
moral, I do not mean the binary "don't kill, hurt or offend any person" morality of Judeo-Christianity,
but the holistic morality of the ancients: doing what is right by the order of the cosmos. In some cases
this means killing; in other cases, healing. There is no clear absolute rule for it, and that's why the
ability of the individual to perceive it - this ability varies widely between individuals - is quite
important, and complex enough that it can only be conveyed by years of positive breeding.

When I look around the average American community, there's a very clear low biological intelligence
factor. People waiting in line at McDonalds for twenty minutes, wasting gasoline and paying high prices
for very bad food. People who cannot drive, even though it's a simple process, mainly because their
attention spans wander and they exist in a slow-motion dream of their own distraction. What about all the
true idiots one encounters in offices and stores, who can be guaranteed to miss the obvious and thus take
the long way around to solving any problem, wasting tons of your time?

Even further, look at what people buy. That most people will buy a $3.99 plastic widget instead of a
$5.99 metal one of the same function that will last twice as long shows not only a basic ignorance of
math (6/2 = 3, not 4), but a total lack of moral character, in that they prefer cheap garbage that clogs
landfills to something of enduring presence. Maybe they don't trust themselves not to destroy it? And
what did they spend that "saved" $2 on, anyway? Oh: beer and DVDs.

Something tells me this people will never be appreciating Beethoven, or even Emperor. They aren't going
to read Conrad, or even Crichton. They're never going to see past the lies of Bill Clinton, or of George
Bush. They're consumers, pure and simple, and they cannot appreciate anything subtle in life, or anything
that demands knowledge of structure and not merely external form. Yet we're breeding more of these and
squeezing out the smart people, because even a total fool can narrow his sights on commerce and make a
lot of money in a specific area - and plenty of them do.

Bill Gates, for example, couldn't survive a night in a forest armed with only a pocketknife. Steve Jobs
wouldn't last as long as Bill would. And Paris Hilton? John Kerry? Britney Spears?

We're descending in not only ideology and lifestyle, here on planet earth, but also in terms of
biological quality. We're failing it on the "producing better humans" front, and because so many people
are dumb as rocks and without moral character, we deconstruct and simplify and abstract anything we
write, see, hear, do so that everyone in the room can get it, in the process obliterating meaning for the
few who actually matter.

As our current society begins to fall apart, starting first with its higher functions and moving into all
aspects of its homeostasis, it at the same time confronts some obvious truths that people have been
ducking since the 1950s, namely that pollution, energy depletion, overpopulation and entertainment
culture really do turn us into elaborate hamsters who are guaranteed to die of cancer in some
crime-infested hole of a city. This process has inspired new impulses toward purging the world of waste.

Our best ecological experts, namely the ones who are alert to the full depth of the problem, suggest 500
million people on earth. If we're going to trim back people, when we grow up and get over our pretense,
it makes sense to select the best 500 million by intelligence, health/beauty and moral character, so that
humanity as a whole improves instead of staying at the same level of mediocrity with simply lower
numbers. In this respect, it's fortunate that our society is falling apart, as it gives us a chance to
clear out the dummies and start working toward higher biological quality again.

Interestingly, a eugenic society would require almost no internal changes. If suddenly we moved up a
grade, the people who would be left would use our extant social and political systems for sensible goals,
because there would no longer be hordes of morons to manipulate with demagoguery and fancy products. We
wouldn't even have to change religions, as smart people interpreting Christianity would start it off on a
more realistic, nature-friendly footing.

Now that we've gone so far into the void, it doesn't look like we could come back, but it's entirely
possible we can, especially if our first step is to upgrade our genetics by slaughtering fools, morons,
criminals and other blockheads who impede sensible living for those fortunate enough to be well-bred. I
have a strange feeling that in this future society, there'd be a lot fewer taboos about discussing
intelligence and biological quality of humankind.

July 20, 2005
5725.79868974996

BlogTerrorist said...

02/26/2005 Technology: Typical Macintosh User
Like everything else in this inane time, computer marketing is a lie. Apple doesn't sell you a computer, they sell you a lifestyle, of tolerance and freestylin' it your own way, as it's more important to be dramatic about your self than to do anything important with life...

10987.0158421634

BlogTerrorist said...

Your uncle is a bar of soap, your cousin is a lampshade
Your best friend is a candle, and you're a fucking jew
Your neighbors are a landfill, too bad you got away
But all the jews that didn't have rotted in the lime pits
50 years later, you've still got an agenda
For world domination, but you'd better think again
To when we had the upper hand, der furher had control
You kikes were in the cattle cars, then shoved into an oven...
Think of all the friends and family you lost...


Happy Hanukaust!


You claim six million, i wish it were true
But you're a pack of lying fucking jews
A holocaust memorial is built on the land
Where most of your relatives are buried in the sand
In bulldozed graves to cover the pollution...
Too bad you weren't part of the final solution
Wearing long sleeves to cover your tattoo
Will never hide the fact that you're a dirty jew
Think of all the friends and family you lost...


Happy Hanukaust!


Light the menorah and think of the time
When you sold out your neighbors for a handful of dimes
All those filthy jews... they must have been pissed,
They couldn't buy their way onto Schindler's list
Think of all the friends and family you lost...


Happy Hanukaust!
77242.0344439612

BlogTerrorist said...

School District to recognize "Ebonics" as a foreign language

7/21/05 - UPI

It used to be called Jive.

A series of slang words grouped together in primitive ways that is spoken by the lowest of evolved humanoids.

Then one alleged educator renamed jive 'ebonics' to somehow
grant respectability to this nigger noise.

Now A school district in Southern California has approved the affirmation and recognition of Ebonics into its curriculum in an
attempt to help the less evolved students improve academic performance.

The San Bernardino Board of Education says a pilot of the policy, known as the Students Accumulating New Knowledge Optimizing Future Accomplishment Initiative, has been implemented at
two city schools.

'Ebonics' or nig-bonics, was recognized as a separate language by the nigger fools at the Oakland, California school board in 1996.

Although the program is aimed at coon students, other students can choose to participate.

Ratibu Jacocks, a member of a coalition of black 'activists' - the Westside Action Group - said they are working with the district to ensure the policy is implemented appropriately.

He welcomes the idea of other ethnic groups lobbying for their own program. "When you are doing what's right, others will follow,' Jacocks said. "We have led the way before the civil-rights movement opened the door for women's rights and other movements."

(How about A White Civil Rights Movement? Why not A special program for German children to embrace their culture?
Is it racist for whites to have special programs but not for Blacks?)

The Minuteman(militiaman) project

7/20/05 - AP

(Communists and other leftist scum claim that the Minutemen
are racist even though they will let anyone participate regardless
of race. Extremist's use this ploy regularly to demonize whatever
they don't like. These guys are about as racist as Bush is smart;
and we should know!)

The minuteman Project is an volunteer movement that vows to guard the United States from the wave of brownskin Spic Scum. Some of the minutemen are nonwhite like Carl Whitaker who runs the Tennessee Volunteer Minutemen. Carl is an subhuman injun who
works to expose those who employ illegal aliens.

At least 40 groups opposing illegal immigration have popped up nationally, inspired by the Minuteman Project that rallied hundreds
this year to patrol the Mexican border in Arizona.

President Boy George has called the movement vigilantism.

The Minuteman Project itself has generated chapters in 18 states, from California to Utah, Minnesota and Maine. The Tennessee group and others like it have no direct affiliation but share a common goal.

At the Department of Homeland Security, whose authority includes patrolling borders and enforcing immigration laws, response to Minuteman-type activism is reserved.

"Homeland security is a shared responsibility, and the department believes the American public plays a critical role in helping to defend the homeland," agency spokesman Jarrod Agen said from Washington. "But as far doing an investigation or anything beyond giving us a heads-up, that should be handled by trained law enforcement."

Non whites and commies attack the Minutemen

7/20/05 - Newswire

Jim Gilchrist the founder of The Minuteman Project experienced the worst of America. He witnessed the literal siege of VFW Post #2080 by about 60 belligerent, death-threatening mud animals twice July 16th. The Caucasian-hating members of the subhuman organization known as the Mexican brown berets, stormed the VFW Lodge, damaging signs and other property. They were eventually repelled
by the late-arriving San Diego County Sheriff's Dept.

No arrests were made.

The rampage was orchestrated by Armando Navarro, a known Spic commie, who holds a comfortable, taxpayer funded, tenured position as a professor at the University of California - Riverside, Ca., and who has devoted his life to promoting the Spic conquest of the seven southwestern US states. He calls for the conquest to be carried
out by gunpoint, if necessary.

One California Minuteman volunteer, Jim Woods, was physically assaulted by a gang of ten of Navarro's thugs as he sat in his car alone at a border outpost. He was physically restrained in his car seat by the brown berets, who threatened to kill him. They stole his keys from the ignition and left him stranded without food or water for several hours. When Jim Woods identified two of the gang members to the Sheriff's Dept. and asked for an arrest, no action was taken by the Sheriff's deputies. One deputy just responded to Mr. Wood's plea for help with "Oh, you just lost your keys," despite repeated pleas to the contrary from Mr. Woods.

Forced crackdown on Illegals incite governors to issue threat

7/19/05 - Associate Press

Fees for a new driver's license have been threatened to triple.
Lines at motor vehicles offices could stretch out the door.

(The sky is falling!)

Governors threatened that states and consumers would get screwed because of the push to turn Drivers licenses into a national ID card.

The new federal law called the REAL ID Act was passed in
June as part of an $82 billion military spending bill.

By 2008, states must begin to verify whether license applicants are American citizens or legal residents of the United States.

Ideally this will prevent states from handing out drivers licenses to any illegal alien that applies. Many states like Oregon hand out drivers licenses without verifying citizenship. Once you have a license
(which is really your government ID card) you then have de facto citizenship.

That deadline brought the first question in a closed-door session between governors and federal officials on homeland security
Monday at the National Governors Association meeting.

The two groups also talked about pressures on National Guard troops, and steps to better integrate state and local law enforcement with federal efforts to prevent terrorist attacks, governors said as they wrapped up their summer meeting.

After meeting privately with governors, Homeland Security Jewboy
Michael Chertoff said the new law could create opportunities to protect people against identity theft. He also offered assurances that his agency would work cooperatively with states. "What we want is to find a common plan that works for everybody, but we'll also take into account the natural differences states have," Chertoff said.

Democrat Bill Richardson of New Mexico said "denying illegal immigrants a driver's license just makes it harder for government
and law enforcement to keep track of them. New Mexico allows illegal aliens to get Drivers licenses. "

(Why don't we just seal the damned borders with electrified fences and minefields? If Ariel Sharon can fence in the Palestinians in
in palestine, why can't be be allowed we fence in our country? Next the government should find the Spics here and bring them home:
either on a bus in they go along willingly or in a box if they resist.
We wouldn't have to keep track of the Beanors or worry about them being uninsured motorists if they were back in the turd-world where their slime belongs!)

Iraqi war continues out of control

7/17/05 - Aljazerra

Deadly violence across Iraq continues, leaving more than 100
people dead and nearly 300 wounded in bombings since 7/14.

Attacks in Baghdad on Sunday morning claimed the lives of 10 people, including five members of the Iraqi security forces, after
police convoys were bombed, an Interior Ministry official said.

The attacks follow Saturday's devastating bombing at the southern town of al-Musayyib, when a man detonated himself near a tanker of liquefied gas, killing at least 70 people and wounding 95, according to hospital sources.

The explosion also set the central square, cars and shops ablaze.

The first attack on Sunday killed two policemen and one civilian
in the eastern New Baghdad neighborhood, police 1st Lieutenant Muhammad Jasim said. Seven policemen and one civilian were also wounded, some seriously.

About an hour later a second car bomb exploded near a police convoy near the Bayaa bus station in southern Baghdad, killing three police commandos and four civilians, police Captain Talib Thamir said. Three civilians were also injured in that blast.

"I was 100 meters away when I saw the fireball. It was enormous... People were burning in their cars. We had to get them out with hooks," said Khodr Abbas.

"I saw women in the burning houses crying for help and we couldn't do a thing," he said.

One of those injured, Ammar al-Karaguili, 40, said he saw disparate parents throwing their children out of windows and from balconies to escape the inferno.

In other violence, a US soldier was killed and two more wounded by an improvised explosive device in the northern Kirkuk province of Iraq, the US military said.

This brought to 1757 the number of US military personnel killed in
Iraq since the March 2003 invasion: according to a tally based on
the slanted Pentagon figures.

KKK Leader: 1979 Shootings Were Self Defense

7/17/05 - Fox Jews

A former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan took the stand at a public hearing Saturday and said those who fired on people at a "Death to the Klan" march more than 25 years ago did so in self-defense.

Five people were killed at the Nov. 3, 1979 rally.

"To tell the truth, if you look at the evidence and see what happened,
it was all self-defense," said Gorrell Pierce. "Everybody was participating in a riot."

Pierce, a former Grand Dragon of the Federated Knights of the KKK, spoke at public hearing held by the Greensboro "Truth and Reconciliation Commission".

The "commission" is investigating the deaths at the march organized by the Communist Workers Party that ended when members of the Klan and the American Nazi Party opened fire.

Leaders in Greensboro, a city of 223,000 in central North Carolina, fear the hearings will rekindle old animosities, but organizers hope to uncover what they feel is the untold story behind the shootings and promote healing.

Pierce said fighting between marchers and Klan members ended in shooting because Communists tried to pull a 79-year-old Klansman out of his car and younger Klansmen came to his aid.

He said he had ordered members of his Klan faction not to attend the march. "I regretted it the day it happened," said Pierce.

Several Klansmen were acquitted of murder charges at a state trial. In 1984, federal prosecutors failed to win a conviction against Virgil Griffin, a Klan member from suburban Charlotte who was acquitted of conspiracy to interfere with a federal investigation. Griffin was scheduled to testify later Saturday.

The shootings followed a clash earlier that year between Communists and Klansmen when the Klan showed the film "Birth of a Nation" in nearby China Grove, Pierce said. At the movie, anti-Klan demonstrators confronted them so closely "you could feel each
other's breath," he said.

11 Soldiers Charged in US torture Incidents

7/16/05 - Associated Press

BlogTerrorist said...

How to Become Your Parents

We all know what it is that makes our parents so distinctive: adults are more beaten down than children because they've seen more frustration and hence, written off more avenues of approach in life. We're all familiar with the sayings they have. Don't fight it, go with the flow, it's just how things are. Don't resist, give up, go along, in other words. For this reason, most people have a nagging fear of being "conformist" like their parents.

What your parents are, more than anything else, is practical. They've set aside a few things they can control and written off the rest, knowing - if they're smart - intuitively that things such as democracy, free enterprise, etc. are covers for the vast ongoing kleptocracy of modern government. They no longer have time for ideals because in their experience, every ideal gets dragged down into the same old thing. You can avoid this, if you want to, but it requires thinking outside of what is commonly accepted as an ideal.

It used to be (1960s) that the way to become your parents was to be conservative. If your only values were earning money and going to church, by god, you'd be a parent in no time at all. The reason for this is that conservatism was where the sheep hid back then, because it was the safest ideology. Now the sheep have found an even safer ideology, and that's liberalism, in all of its covert forms - including what passes for "conservatism" today.

The core of liberalism is class warfare, or the ongoing desire to lift up those who are impoverished or oppressed so that there can be social equality. Liberal ideologies from Communism to the Democratic Party to Anarchists to what passes for "Greens" all share this basic thrust. Their fundamental idea is that if we make everyone happy, there will be no strife, and if there's no strife, we will not be personally endangered. And that's where liberal thought ends. It doesn't go on to consider what might make a life meaningful, or make living in a society positive. But it's a perfect ideology for getting along with people.

Think about it. If you encounter people working on your house, bums in the street, impoverished oppressed AIDS patients, etc. you can tell them you're on their side. You believe everyone should have what you do, and as a token of that, you'll hand them a small gift and send them on their way. It's a combination of pacifism, or refusing to fight for what must be done because someone might get hurt, and pity, or finding a way to make others seem puny by giving them things and thus affirming the roles of you as powerful giver and them as weaker receiver. For whatever reason, because it refuses to assert that some ideas are worth fighting for over others, and because it refuses to acknowledge that not all people are equal in ability, liberalism is a very popular belief, even when hidden in a conservative skin in the style of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

However, remember the old adage: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberalism, as good intentions, creates disorder out of society by, instead of putting effort into the growing areas of society, e.g. its excellent people, putting energy into those who are going nowhere and removing any external pressure for them to rise up out of a state of failure. Since liberalism is one of those beliefs composed of moral/ideological projections instead of adaptations to reality, it also puts everyone in spacy cloud-nine fantasyland, where they dream on about how good they are and how the poor are being helped while what they should be focusing on - society as a whole - goes into the toilet. But no one ever got fired for adopting a liberal idea, because if you don't stamp it with allegiance to a certain party (red star), the basic concepts are socially inoffensive. "Sure, I accept every person as my brother or sister."

Liberalism is in fact no different from the conservative Christianity which was the bedrock of conservatism in the 1950s. We fight the Soviets because they don't have "freedom," so what we're doing is morally right. Now we fight "racists" for the same reason, not thinking that perhaps there is no end to this war. But let me share with you a little secret: whether we call it Christianity, or liberalism, or pluralism, or humanism, the simplest way to become a beaten down and submissive droid like your parents is to adopt this viewpoint. The secret is that out of all the beliefs you can potentially adopt, almost all are derived from liberalism, and therefore, basically the same.

Be a hippie or a Republican, an anarchist or a Green, a Libertarian or a Communist. It doesn't matter. You're still upholding the same basic broken belief system that originates in the Jewish idea that morality should preserve the individual at all costs, and avoid personal sacrifice; this is in dramatic contrast to the Indo-Aryan ideal that ideals should be upheld at all costs, as they are the basis of structure in our lives. No matter how much you rebel, with Che Guevara posters on your walls and emo in the CD player, you're still acting through the same tired drama that has torn down every civilization, which is a progressive distancing from reality and regression into the individual.

This type of thinking makes it easy to be beaten down. You can't have any strong opinions, because that would offend someone, and therefore be not only un-liberal but bad for business. You can't desire any change outside that mythological beast known as your "personal life," because that might conflict with someone else's desires - no matter how insane - and thus cause offense and loss of business. Finally, you can't ever suggest that the way we do things - liberalism - is in error, because it's clearly a "good" thing and also a socially-accepted one. Keep these ideas in your head, and soon it won't be worth fighting and you'll give in to the flow. You will have become your parents. 55840.5994110074

BlogTerrorist said...

Modernity
There can be nothing more frustrating than trying to explain something to someone who cannot perceive it. It is not that they will not; if they had that kind of decision on their hands, they could understand. Not did not; they simply lack the ability to, now or forevermore, process the kind of detail required. This type of thinking is not detail-obsessed, but it require that one build a mental picture of the future based on many tiny details, because, and I hope this isn't a news flash, life rarely spells out its plans in big bold letters on the wall in front of you. All myths to the contrary, life is plenty happy to let you wander right up to disaster and linger by it for awhile until, figuring the coast is clear, you take one too many steps and BOOM, it comes crashing down on your ass.

When I tell people that modern society has a great and pervasive disease, the common response is either (a) I don't see it or (b) well, I'm doing okay, so why would I worry? The former is at least honest; the paradoxical bitterness of relativity is that it doesn't excuse one for not seeing the truth, but admits that most people literally have limitations as to how much complexity they can handle, and thus what they can perceive. An idiot sees a house on fire; a genius sees a fire extinguisher in one corner. The second group of people need more analysis, as they claim to have knowledge of impending doom, yet paradoxically, claim it does not affect them. A genius sees a house on fire and gets the fire extinguisher; an idiot simply closes the door to his room - out of sight, out of mind.

So here we are in the world where no one can perceive how deeply screwed things may be. There are thousands of details that must be correlated to see the whole picture. Most people can't drive a car through an intersection in a timely manner, or figure out routine transactions. They are distracted by their own drama, and thus they screw everything up and take forever, then get weepy if confronted. The streets are lined with giant, ugly buildings in which impersonal agencies dole out rigid policies and god help you if you're an exception. Government takes in money and sends out fines and prison sentences for gross violations. Those who are smart avoid the law while ripping people off, legally, and thus have the best of both worlds.

Few notice, but we're steadily consuming more nonrenewable resources. There will be no more gasoline; there's a finite amount. Most people cannot even comprehend that sentence to understand its implications. There is no more land that is going to be created; there is only so much land, and we use more of it each year. Everywhere one looks, the signs are there, if one knows what to look at. Jobs are hilarious shuffling of papers and conning of fellow humans into believing one illusion over the other and, thus approved, transferring one sum of money into another. People live for empty, pointless lives. The highpoint of their day is often television, or consumption of products. Interpersonal relations consist of attacking others and trying to drag them down to make yourself feel better. What kind of life is this?

One thing that astounds any sane observer is how people are isolated mentally in modern society. For example, today I saw some guy in a wheelchair selling candy at an intersection. He'd pull up right beside cars and sell you M

BlogTerrorist said...

Adam Yahiye (Y.A.) Gadahn: An Appeal

This is an open letter to the American people regarding Adam Yahiye Gadahn, and his recent addition to
the terrorist threat list by the FBI. Unlike most of the documents on this site, it is a plea for
"walking around in the other guy's shoes."

I never met Y.A. Gadahn face-to-face, but I knew him through his contributions to my radio show. When I
last spoke to him, back in the 1990s, he created several fliers for the show, and helped out with
numerous music programming suggestions. I remember him as a passionate, courteous, intelligent kid
excited about life, but somewhat cowed by its unnecessary human-induced dark side, thus prone to
listening to lots of quality death metal.

Call it compassion, or call it empathy, but a lot of kids like Y.A. Gadahn resonated with me in spirit.
They came from dark homes where overworked parents (if they were lucky - often a single parent) drove
long hours to labor in the bowels of the city-machine, and came home with no energy for their kids.
Brainless, authoritarian public schools. Neurotic adults who couldn't explain why all of this was
important. An increasingly-restrictive republic whose electorate seemed uninformed as to the actual
issues. A natural world being consumed and turned into strip malls at an alarming rate.

I think this future is what alarms a lot of us, patriotic Americans and al-Qaeda radicals alike. The idea
that maybe we're speeding toward something we can't control, that we can't undo. The thought that as our
obsession with money and power reaches new heights, we'll forget nature, and will also forget there's
another way outside our dark thorny path of righteousness.

I don't believe al-Qaeda is evil, and I don't believe George Bush is illegal. I definitely don't believe
A.Y. Gadahn is "evil," or even ill-intentioned. I think he's a sincere guy like any number of others you
may have grown up next door to, worked a cube over from, spent time guffawing with at a baseball game. I
knew him as a normal kid, with normal desires and normal fears, including a growing dread of what "modern
life" has become.

Because of this, today, I ask for your compassion, and for your consideration of a singular thought: it
could be there are no "good guys" and "bad guys" here, but that we, as a society have lost our way and
need to re-invent our values. Where we once had a goal in overcoming nature, we now have no goals except
those in society itself... money, power, look-at-me social importance.

More than any tangible political goals, I think it's the goal of al-Qaeda and other dissident groups
(including ANUS, the GNAA, and Abrupt) to resist that coming darkness. It might not yet have stamped its
consequences onto our foreheads, but it's like that day in school when your teacher is delayed in
conference and you and your friends spend the first twenty minutes of class raising hell: this can't end
well. Ultimately, there will be a piper to pay.

Your oceans are choked with plastic. Your air, awash in chemicals. Your cities wastelands of crime and
look-a-like plastic storefronts. Your children, alienated and lonely in dysfunctional families, broken
social relationships, and prisonlike schools.

Before you ride another normal guy into the ground so he can be worked over by military intelligence, I
ask you this: consider an option.

Do it for A.Y. Gadahn, or do it for whatever ideals you hold dearest, or do it for yourself, but do it.
Resist. With reason, passion and the knowledge that it doesn't have to be this way.

Sincerely,
Spinoza Ray Prozak
72358.7811074986

BlogTerrorist said...

34401.0274402712

BlogTerrorist said...

How to Become Your Parents

We all know what it is that makes our parents so distinctive: adults are more beaten down than children because they've seen more frustration and hence, written off more avenues of approach in life. We're all familiar with the sayings they have. Don't fight it, go with the flow, it's just how things are. Don't resist, give up, go along, in other words. For this reason, most people have a nagging fear of being "conformist" like their parents.

What your parents are, more than anything else, is practical. They've set aside a few things they can control and written off the rest, knowing - if they're smart - intuitively that things such as democracy, free enterprise, etc. are covers for the vast ongoing kleptocracy of modern government. They no longer have time for ideals because in their experience, every ideal gets dragged down into the same old thing. You can avoid this, if you want to, but it requires thinking outside of what is commonly accepted as an ideal.

It used to be (1960s) that the way to become your parents was to be conservative. If your only values were earning money and going to church, by god, you'd be a parent in no time at all. The reason for this is that conservatism was where the sheep hid back then, because it was the safest ideology. Now the sheep have found an even safer ideology, and that's liberalism, in all of its covert forms - including what passes for "conservatism" today.

The core of liberalism is class warfare, or the ongoing desire to lift up those who are impoverished or oppressed so that there can be social equality. Liberal ideologies from Communism to the Democratic Party to Anarchists to what passes for "Greens" all share this basic thrust. Their fundamental idea is that if we make everyone happy, there will be no strife, and if there's no strife, we will not be personally endangered. And that's where liberal thought ends. It doesn't go on to consider what might make a life meaningful, or make living in a society positive. But it's a perfect ideology for getting along with people.

Think about it. If you encounter people working on your house, bums in the street, impoverished oppressed AIDS patients, etc. you can tell them you're on their side. You believe everyone should have what you do, and as a token of that, you'll hand them a small gift and send them on their way. It's a combination of pacifism, or refusing to fight for what must be done because someone might get hurt, and pity, or finding a way to make others seem puny by giving them things and thus affirming the roles of you as powerful giver and them as weaker receiver. For whatever reason, because it refuses to assert that some ideas are worth fighting for over others, and because it refuses to acknowledge that not all people are equal in ability, liberalism is a very popular belief, even when hidden in a conservative skin in the style of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

However, remember the old adage: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberalism, as good intentions, creates disorder out of society by, instead of putting effort into the growing areas of society, e.g. its excellent people, putting energy into those who are going nowhere and removing any external pressure for them to rise up out of a state of failure. Since liberalism is one of those beliefs composed of moral/ideological projections instead of adaptations to reality, it also puts everyone in spacy cloud-nine fantasyland, where they dream on about how good they are and how the poor are being helped while what they should be focusing on - society as a whole - goes into the toilet. But no one ever got fired for adopting a liberal idea, because if you don't stamp it with allegiance to a certain party (red star), the basic concepts are socially inoffensive. "Sure, I accept every person as my brother or sister."

Liberalism is in fact no different from the conservative Christianity which was the bedrock of conservatism in the 1950s. We fight the Soviets because they don't have "freedom," so what we're doing is morally right. Now we fight "racists" for the same reason, not thinking that perhaps there is no end to this war. But let me share with you a little secret: whether we call it Christianity, or liberalism, or pluralism, or humanism, the simplest way to become a beaten down and submissive droid like your parents is to adopt this viewpoint. The secret is that out of all the beliefs you can potentially adopt, almost all are derived from liberalism, and therefore, basically the same.

Be a hippie or a Republican, an anarchist or a Green, a Libertarian or a Communist. It doesn't matter. You're still upholding the same basic broken belief system that originates in the Jewish idea that morality should preserve the individual at all costs, and avoid personal sacrifice; this is in dramatic contrast to the Indo-Aryan ideal that ideals should be upheld at all costs, as they are the basis of structure in our lives. No matter how much you rebel, with Che Guevara posters on your walls and emo in the CD player, you're still acting through the same tired drama that has torn down every civilization, which is a progressive distancing from reality and regression into the individual.

This type of thinking makes it easy to be beaten down. You can't have any strong opinions, because that would offend someone, and therefore be not only un-liberal but bad for business. You can't desire any change outside that mythological beast known as your "personal life," because that might conflict with someone else's desires - no matter how insane - and thus cause offense and loss of business. Finally, you can't ever suggest that the way we do things - liberalism - is in error, because it's clearly a "good" thing and also a socially-accepted one. Keep these ideas in your head, and soon it won't be worth fighting and you'll give in to the flow. You will have become your parents. 33431.3328733266

BlogTerrorist said...

LOL @ Terry Schaivo

With Bill O'Reily saying to keep her alive because "a miracle could still happen", people across America asking Fox News how "we can starve her to death when someone starving a dog gets sent to jail", and other such inanities, the thoughts of the common American are obvious- death fear reigns supreme. It's better to live in pointless existence than to end this existence.

Interestingly, many of those for pulling the plug are demonstrating a similar lack of understanding of the state of nothingness by sympathizing with the plight of someone who doesn't know or care about her plight.

Chalk up another victory to "being enlightened"!
16858.8273147718

BlogTerrorist said...

02/26/2005 Technology: Typical Macintosh User
Like everything else in this inane time, computer marketing is a lie. Apple doesn't sell you a computer, they sell you a lifestyle, of tolerance and freestylin' it your own way, as it's more important to be dramatic about your self than to do anything important with life...

79502.7310354596

BlogTerrorist said...

What did one gay sperm say to another?
"How do we find an egg in all of this shit?"

What does GAY really stand for?
Got Aids Yet?

How do you know that you have walked into a homosexual church service?
Only half the congregation are kneeling!

How many faggots does it take to put in a light bulb?
Only one.
but it takes an entire emergency room to remove it!

What is the first symptom of AIDS?
An extreme pain in the ass!

What's the definition of tender love?
Two faggots with hemorrhoids!

Two really sick faggots were visiting the zoo,
when they found themselves at the gorilla cage.
The gorilla was sitting there with a huge erection.
Unable to contain himself the first queer reaches
inside the cage and tries to touch the huge cock.
As soon as arm goes into the cage the gorilla grabs him,
takes him into the cage, slams him on the floor and fucks him senseless.
A few days later in hospital the fag's boyfriend visits him and said, "Does it hurt?"
"Hurt? Hurt?" cried out the raped faggot, "Of course it hurts.
He hasn't phoned and he hasn't written�!"

How do you get four faggots to share one bar stool?
Turn it upside down and hand them a bucket of grease!

What do call a queer who doesn't have AIDS?
A lucky cocksucker!

How do faggots spell relief?
N-O-A-I-D-S!

What is a shit?
A faggots wet dream!

What does AIDS stand for?
Asshole Injected Death Sentence!

How can you tell if a household is homosexual?
The welcome mat reads 'Please wipe Your Knees!'

What do you call two faggots on a waterbed?
A fruit float!

Why are faggots always the first out of burning buildings?
Because they already have their shit packed!

Why can't scientist's discover a cure for AIDS?
Because they can't get the laboratory mice to fuck each other up the ass!

What do you call a fag dentist?
The tooth fairy of course!

Two queers are in a hot tub pushing a big turd back and forth in the water. Another fag walked in and asked, "What the hell are you two doing?"
"We are teaching our baby how to swim!"

What's a homosexual masochist?
A sucker for punishment!

Two faggots were on a sunny beach. The first one said, "Shall I put the umbrella up?" "Yes," replied the second homo, "But don't open it, I'm a bit sore!"

What do you call a fag bar with no stools?
A fruit stand!

If three faggots are in bed together what do you call the one in the middle?
A double adapter!

What do you call the foreskin on a faggot?
Mudflaps!

How can you tell if a bank robber is a faggot?
He ties up the safe and blows the Security Guard!

What happened when three faggots attacked a woman?
Two of them held her down and the other did her hair!

Did you hear about the two fags who had an argument in a gay bar?
They went outside and exchanged blows!

Why did the faggot think his boyfriend was cheating on him?
Because he kept coming home shitfaced!

What's the worst thing a straight guy can say in a gay bar?
Can you push my stool in please?!

Why was the queer sacked from his job in the sperm bank?
He was caught drinking on the job!

What do you give a queer with AIDS for Christmas?
Cancer!

Two sick fags were taking a shower with each other.
The phone rings and Lance says to Rod,
"I will be right back darling, so don't start without me!"
After a minute or so Lance comes back,
and sees cum splattered all over the shower wall.
"I thought I told you not to start without me!"
replied Rod, "I didn't start without you, I just farted!"

What's the greatest thing about AIDS?
It can turn a fruit into a vegetable!

What do you call a fag milkman?
A dairy queen!

An obviously gay guy swished onto a bus to face a derogatory sneer from the massive bus driver.
"Faggot! growled the driver, "Where's your pearls?"
"Pearls with corduroy?" shrieked the gay, "Are you mad!"

What do fags call hemorrhoids?
Speed bumps!

How do you know you're at a gay BBQ?
The hotdogs taste like shit!13555.4814596076

BlogTerrorist said...

Elections and Futures
Plenty of ink has been wasted on the 2004 election in America, and what it portends for our future. Much more won't be wasted here, but it is an opportune topic on which to show how people identify themselves with partisan viewpoints and thus conveniently blind themselves to the actual larger question of leadership. If you think picking Kerry over Bush, or Bush over Kerry, is somehow going to stop the course of decay, or constitutes a decision of any importance, you are assuming that there is a solution within the system itself and are denying its basic unworkability.

Those who own the media and politicians will be glad for such a view, at it supports the current dysfunction and the broken values system behind it which praises "freedom" while allowing an oligarchy motivated by money - not Judaism, not multiculturalism, not a vast right-wing conspiracy - to manipulate you and destroy your future. In this view, you had the sensitivity people, represented by John Kerry, and the aggressive people, represented by George Bush; if you picked one candidate and believed honestly that that would change the nature of the system, or "prevent" a great ill, you are pretending that (a) that there's not much wrong or (b) that there's so much wrong we can do nothing about it.

Such pretense is a justification for inaction that transcends political boundaries. Such an inaction takes this system at face value, and by believing that solutions lie within the options offered, endorses our system as not only workable, but worth supporting! In a larger view, a vote for Bush or for Kerry was a vote for a continuation of a failed system which has been getting increasingly authoritarian through both Republican and Democratic administrations; the system would continue on its course because its power lies in internal division, which conveniently allows vast profits to be made while future problems accumulate - whether you picked Option A or Option B on the ballot.

It is fortunate the George W. Bush won the election.

This is not because he was the best candidate, but because it brought the situation to a peak and demonstrated the failings of this system in its entirety. Bush represents everything that's despicable about America: its religious and "freedom" rhetoric while supporting corrupt allies for the sake of international commerce, which transfers money from our population to investors who have no allegiance to anything productive - they care only about their profit, and how to take it from you. They consider themselves "smart" for doing this, since it is "getting ahead," and being "successful," and damn all who can't see this - they must be stupid.

Neither candidate would have changed anything; it's clear that if Americans weren't rock-ignorant they would have put in votes for Nader, guaranteeing the presence of third parties in a political system that increasingly represents two different views of the same option. However, they listened to their televisions, and out of fear that Bush would win, threw all their support behind Kerry, every bit as much the child of privilege and conniving robber baron that Bush and his family are. Consequently, Bush wins this election, and a democrat the next, and the system continues basically unchanged. Although it is current popular to whine about Bush, keep in mind that he was elected by the majority of the people, and represented little different viewpoint than that of John Kerry.

Imagine that John Kerry won. What would he do that differs from Bush's policy? Not much - Clinton demonstrated the willingness of the left to sign away constitutional "rights" and "freedoms" in favor of national security, and any president that doesn't address the threat of "terrorism" with more draconian measures guarantees his own failure. He can't back out of Iraq without leaving Iraq to collapse; he doesn't want to keep fighting the war; and if he picks a "middle option" of less military involvement, he guarantees a military defeat as well as the collapse of Iraq. He might try to prop up the ailing Social Security program, but, as the wisest economists point out, it's a system dependent on future wage earners making less and paying less to support more people. It is doomed.

So what did John Kerry offer? He's a devout Methodist, remember - but he might patch up some things with Europe. That's great, if we want to drag Europe down into the same morass that afflicts America - why would we want that? He might be more popular worldwide because he's less visibly ignorant, less of an insane warmonger and less of a religious fanatic, but that's conjecture based on the idea that he was opposed to the Iraq war and would sign the Kyoto treaty. As shown above, his options in Iraq are extremely limited; Kyoto is a symbolic gesture, and going beyond it would require that Kerry turn on the corporate interests that helped support him. Not very likely, for a politician.

No, my friends - you aren't children anymore - there are no such easy answers. The disease runs far deeper. Not only does every democracy collapse this way, but your system is motivated by a psychology of masses versus elites that guarantees we all lose, every time. People rail against Bush because it's a popular opinion. Every celebrity repeats it, and your favorite political commentators and entertainers parrot it. It's popular because, like most popular opinions, it claims something vast and important for very little action; it's a "bargain." Bush is the problem, bleat bleat; it's not the downfall of your country because the foundations of its power are corrupt by nature. If we just get rid of the bad apples and "terrorists" - bleat - maybe we can return to enjoying our freedom, our DVDs, our heroin and our hobbies. Wouldn't that be a nice easy vision?

It is however an essentially similar idea to the concept that you can buy a different selection of products than your friends and thus construct a unique identity, or the idea that if you buy a health club membership, you'll automatically start excercising. My friends, there are no such easy answers, and in a society motivated by money, all of your obvious choices will support that system of money. Neither Bush nor Kerry came from anything but a life of luxury and doors opened by whispered names, but - bleat bleat - they're clearly better leaders than Nader. They offer us what American society has always promised, which is "freedom" (yet no one can define it) and the ability to earn as much money as we can stand putting in the boring hours to achieve. American society promises there are no elites, and that we're all "equal," and in that is the disease.

While George W. Bush is a horrible leader, a sociopathic fundamentalist zealot, and makes no illusions about his being in the pocket of large corporations, the problems run deeper. Clinton after all had the same issues, as well as some problems keeping his pants zipped. But you have to ask yourself: what kind of a society keeps pretending this is an operational system? Money drives the world, and so culture and nature and art are ploughed under while products that satisfy the basest of mass appetites make wealth for unscrupulous investors. Since we always need new customers, the society itself keeps expanding. It doesn't end, at least not from its own will; it ends when it collapses into a third-world economy, and those always seem to be run by oligarchies of international investors who buy off local warlords.

Money drives the world - because we cannot agree on a direction, we pick money as something "equal" and "fair" to us all, since the best obviously are the most driven to make tons of money and thus, are suitable as our leaders. It isn't that these people were born of kingly blood, but that they've worked hard and gotten ahead by manipulating the system - by being popular and appealing to the broadest segment of opinion, no matter how ignorant it may be - in healthier times, we called such people prostitutes. It isn't the president that creates the system; he is a creation of the system. If you believe as your controllers wish, you'll think that democracy has been "subverted" but if you read a little history, you will see that all democracies end this way, because the public image requirements of democracy create behind-the-scenes commercial oligarchies.

While we have the ability to fix our society, but perhaps not the democratic system, it is not going to happen by picking Option B over Option A as your vote. Nor can it be helped by making charitable donations to the "right" organizations, nor by becoming an "activist" and staging public protests that no one gives a second thought. It requires something new for the American public, and that's actual political involvement, instead of "supporting" one of the two talking heads and hoping that "the good people" will fix the situation for you. I mean, did you really believe that - are you still children, after all? The oligarchs laugh at you, little sheep, for falling right into their trap, all while congratulating yourselves for voting for the "right" man!

Realizing this cuts to the root of the problem: for centuries our society has been at war with itself, masses versus elites, and it has ended up deciding in favor of the more populous group - the broadest segment of society, who generally have no specific talents or inclinations, but are able to buy products like anyone else and thus, if "empowered," become ideal consumers, because they have no tendency toward higher rationale of purchases. There isn't anything "wrong" with such people, but clearly they're not the right leadership for any society which wishes to rise above its origins. The public ideal that ignorance is better than appearing to be "above" any other citizen allows the oligarchs to manipulate citizens with public image. In life, everything keeps going on a path toward the simplest compromise unless something brighter and more visionary intervenes.

Bush illustrates that the American way of life and political system is incompatible with any values system, as the simplest ideas always triumph, and when your choice of leader is to pick one of two camps of opposing millionaires, there's clearly a fault in the system and not in which candidate you pick. This is a more complex view, and one that doesn't take our system at face value. I am sure you are all smugly disagreeing, congratulating yourselves on knowing the "truth," but perhaps if you think on this you'll see how you've been played for a fool.

Those who are the most smug are the drones, who are happiest with any philosophy that justifies inaction and following the present course of action; these are the underconfident people who want some reason to feel good about themselves, and the idea that we require change and constant development toward new heights of strength and wisdom suggests to the underconfident that something is "wrong" with what they are; these people see only the present moment, and not the bigger picture. Drones love the current society because it gives them a reason to feel good about themselves; after all, we accept everyone as they are, and look at the good things we are doing for others. We feel better when we can reach a hand out to others and help them, as it makes us feel powerful. Who needs that but the underconfident?

And what is the ultimate evil, to a sheep or a drone, except to be beyond the rigid and absolute rules required by underconfident individuals to protect them from criticism and possible defeat? For this reason the rule of the sheep has prevailed in Europe and America, and it has bred people who conform to its rules and expectations, leading to an ongoing decline which no picking of Option A or Option B can stop. Realize that George W. Bush is what he is - the right man, for the right time. But recognize that time for what it is: the final stages of a social decay. This rot comes from our illusory thinking, and makes broken people, and only when we reverse it do we become internally strong enough to have a society worth living in again. What reverses it is a heroic mindset, in contrast to our current passive one.

A heroic mindset places the individual second to what must be achieved so that all may experience its greatness; its opposite is the passive viewpoint, which in adults (although most adults today adopt it) is emasculating. Passive mindsets include the idea of an absolute religious truth, like morality, or an absolute secular truth, such as liberalism; other variations on this are utilitarianism, or the belief that what most people find appealing is the right path for us all, and of course, materialism, or the belief that nothing matters but individual comfort and convenience. A decaying society will be passive, and will not offer you an Option on the ballot to undo its error through a normal election; you will have to "think outside of the box."

The passive mindset is your true enemy, although it may not directly affect you, right now. All declining civilizations have such a passive mindset, because such an outlook is needed to stop increasing the power of a society and to fall back into dividing up the spoils, following social trends and caring about popularity - rising civilizations set aside these temporary delights, and instead look toward achievement as a sense of pride. This is what made all ancient civilizations great, and will be responsible for the rise of any future civilization that is great. Our current society has nothing to say for itself except that it is passive, and pledges not to hurt you, unless you offend its sensibilities, in which case you are "evil."

Television drones pick one option over the other and congratulate themselves on thinking "progressively" or for upholding "what made this country great," but no such simple options await you - Are you still children? Bush is reprehensible, but he is a symptom of the illusory thinking of our decaying civilization. Instead of believing in politics itself, think outside of politics and arm yourself with ideas of a better civilization - in this is the only salvation from the type of dysfunctional options offered by election 2004.


29710.3927384232

BlogTerrorist said...

School District to recognize "Ebonics" as a foreign language

7/21/05 - UPI

It used to be called Jive.

A series of slang words grouped together in primitive ways that is spoken by the lowest of evolved humanoids.

Then one alleged educator renamed jive 'ebonics' to somehow
grant respectability to this nigger noise.

Now A school district in Southern California has approved the affirmation and recognition of Ebonics into its curriculum in an
attempt to help the less evolved students improve academic performance.

The San Bernardino Board of Education says a pilot of the policy, known as the Students Accumulating New Knowledge Optimizing Future Accomplishment Initiative, has been implemented at
two city schools.

'Ebonics' or nig-bonics, was recognized as a separate language by the nigger fools at the Oakland, California school board in 1996.

Although the program is aimed at coon students, other students can choose to participate.

Ratibu Jacocks, a member of a coalition of black 'activists' - the Westside Action Group - said they are working with the district to ensure the policy is implemented appropriately.

He welcomes the idea of other ethnic groups lobbying for their own program. "When you are doing what's right, others will follow,' Jacocks said. "We have led the way before the civil-rights movement opened the door for women's rights and other movements."

(How about A White Civil Rights Movement? Why not A special program for German children to embrace their culture?
Is it racist for whites to have special programs but not for Blacks?)

The Minuteman(militiaman) project

7/20/05 - AP

(Communists and other leftist scum claim that the Minutemen
are racist even though they will let anyone participate regardless
of race. Extremist's use this ploy regularly to demonize whatever
they don't like. These guys are about as racist as Bush is smart;
and we should know!)

The minuteman Project is an volunteer movement that vows to guard the United States from the wave of brownskin Spic Scum. Some of the minutemen are nonwhite like Carl Whitaker who runs the Tennessee Volunteer Minutemen. Carl is an subhuman injun who
works to expose those who employ illegal aliens.

At least 40 groups opposing illegal immigration have popped up nationally, inspired by the Minuteman Project that rallied hundreds
this year to patrol the Mexican border in Arizona.

President Boy George has called the movement vigilantism.

The Minuteman Project itself has generated chapters in 18 states, from California to Utah, Minnesota and Maine. The Tennessee group and others like it have no direct affiliation but share a common goal.

At the Department of Homeland Security, whose authority includes patrolling borders and enforcing immigration laws, response to Minuteman-type activism is reserved.

"Homeland security is a shared responsibility, and the department believes the American public plays a critical role in helping to defend the homeland," agency spokesman Jarrod Agen said from Washington. "But as far doing an investigation or anything beyond giving us a heads-up, that should be handled by trained law enforcement."

Non whites and commies attack the Minutemen

7/20/05 - Newswire

Jim Gilchrist the founder of The Minuteman Project experienced the worst of America. He witnessed the literal siege of VFW Post #2080 by about 60 belligerent, death-threatening mud animals twice July 16th. The Caucasian-hating members of the subhuman organization known as the Mexican brown berets, stormed the VFW Lodge, damaging signs and other property. They were eventually repelled
by the late-arriving San Diego County Sheriff's Dept.

No arrests were made.

The rampage was orchestrated by Armando Navarro, a known Spic commie, who holds a comfortable, taxpayer funded, tenured position as a professor at the University of California - Riverside, Ca., and who has devoted his life to promoting the Spic conquest of the seven southwestern US states. He calls for the conquest to be carried
out by gunpoint, if necessary.

One California Minuteman volunteer, Jim Woods, was physically assaulted by a gang of ten of Navarro's thugs as he sat in his car alone at a border outpost. He was physically restrained in his car seat by the brown berets, who threatened to kill him. They stole his keys from the ignition and left him stranded without food or water for several hours. When Jim Woods identified two of the gang members to the Sheriff's Dept. and asked for an arrest, no action was taken by the Sheriff's deputies. One deputy just responded to Mr. Wood's plea for help with "Oh, you just lost your keys," despite repeated pleas to the contrary from Mr. Woods.

Forced crackdown on Illegals incite governors to issue threat

7/19/05 - Associate Press

Fees for a new driver's license have been threatened to triple.
Lines at motor vehicles offices could stretch out the door.

(The sky is falling!)

Governors threatened that states and consumers would get screwed because of the push to turn Drivers licenses into a national ID card.

The new federal law called the REAL ID Act was passed in
June as part of an $82 billion military spending bill.

By 2008, states must begin to verify whether license applicants are American citizens or legal residents of the United States.

Ideally this will prevent states from handing out drivers licenses to any illegal alien that applies. Many states like Oregon hand out drivers licenses without verifying citizenship. Once you have a license
(which is really your government ID card) you then have de facto citizenship.

That deadline brought the first question in a closed-door session between governors and federal officials on homeland security
Monday at the National Governors Association meeting.

The two groups also talked about pressures on National Guard troops, and steps to better integrate state and local law enforcement with federal efforts to prevent terrorist attacks, governors said as they wrapped up their summer meeting.

After meeting privately with governors, Homeland Security Jewboy
Michael Chertoff said the new law could create opportunities to protect people against identity theft. He also offered assurances that his agency would work cooperatively with states. "What we want is to find a common plan that works for everybody, but we'll also take into account the natural differences states have," Chertoff said.

Democrat Bill Richardson of New Mexico said "denying illegal immigrants a driver's license just makes it harder for government
and law enforcement to keep track of them. New Mexico allows illegal aliens to get Drivers licenses. "

(Why don't we just seal the damned borders with electrified fences and minefields? If Ariel Sharon can fence in the Palestinians in
in palestine, why can't be be allowed we fence in our country? Next the government should find the Spics here and bring them home:
either on a bus in they go along willingly or in a box if they resist.
We wouldn't have to keep track of the Beanors or worry about them being uninsured motorists if they were back in the turd-world where their slime belongs!)

Iraqi war continues out of control

7/17/05 - Aljazerra

Deadly violence across Iraq continues, leaving more than 100
people dead and nearly 300 wounded in bombings since 7/14.

Attacks in Baghdad on Sunday morning claimed the lives of 10 people, including five members of the Iraqi security forces, after
police convoys were bombed, an Interior Ministry official said.

The attacks follow Saturday's devastating bombing at the southern town of al-Musayyib, when a man detonated himself near a tanker of liquefied gas, killing at least 70 people and wounding 95, according to hospital sources.

The explosion also set the central square, cars and shops ablaze.

The first attack on Sunday killed two policemen and one civilian
in the eastern New Baghdad neighborhood, police 1st Lieutenant Muhammad Jasim said. Seven policemen and one civilian were also wounded, some seriously.

About an hour later a second car bomb exploded near a police convoy near the Bayaa bus station in southern Baghdad, killing three police commandos and four civilians, police Captain Talib Thamir said. Three civilians were also injured in that blast.

"I was 100 meters away when I saw the fireball. It was enormous... People were burning in their cars. We had to get them out with hooks," said Khodr Abbas.

"I saw women in the burning houses crying for help and we couldn't do a thing," he said.

One of those injured, Ammar al-Karaguili, 40, said he saw disparate parents throwing their children out of windows and from balconies to escape the inferno.

In other violence, a US soldier was killed and two more wounded by an improvised explosive device in the northern Kirkuk province of Iraq, the US military said.

This brought to 1757 the number of US military personnel killed in
Iraq since the March 2003 invasion: according to a tally based on
the slanted Pentagon figures.

KKK Leader: 1979 Shootings Were Self Defense

7/17/05 - Fox Jews

A former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan took the stand at a public hearing Saturday and said those who fired on people at a "Death to the Klan" march more than 25 years ago did so in self-defense.

Five people were killed at the Nov. 3, 1979 rally.

"To tell the truth, if you look at the evidence and see what happened,
it was all self-defense," said Gorrell Pierce. "Everybody was participating in a riot."

Pierce, a former Grand Dragon of the Federated Knights of the KKK, spoke at public hearing held by the Greensboro "Truth and Reconciliation Commission".

The "commission" is investigating the deaths at the march organized by the Communist Workers Party that ended when members of the Klan and the American Nazi Party opened fire.

Leaders in Greensboro, a city of 223,000 in central North Carolina, fear the hearings will rekindle old animosities, but organizers hope to uncover what they feel is the untold story behind the shootings and promote healing.

Pierce said fighting between marchers and Klan members ended in shooting because Communists tried to pull a 79-year-old Klansman out of his car and younger Klansmen came to his aid.

He said he had ordered members of his Klan faction not to attend the march. "I regretted it the day it happened," said Pierce.

Several Klansmen were acquitted of murder charges at a state trial. In 1984, federal prosecutors failed to win a conviction against Virgil Griffin, a Klan member from suburban Charlotte who was acquitted of conspiracy to interfere with a federal investigation. Griffin was scheduled to testify later Saturday.

The shootings followed a clash earlier that year between Communists and Klansmen when the Klan showed the film "Birth of a Nation" in nearby China Grove, Pierce said. At the movie, anti-Klan demonstrators confronted them so closely "you could feel each
other's breath," he said.

11 Soldiers Charged in US torture Incidents

7/16/05 - Associated Press

BlogTerrorist said...

Your uncle is a bar of soap, your cousin is a lampshade
Your best friend is a candle, and you're a fucking jew
Your neighbors are a landfill, too bad you got away
But all the jews that didn't have rotted in the lime pits
50 years later, you've still got an agenda
For world domination, but you'd better think again
To when we had the upper hand, der furher had control
You kikes were in the cattle cars, then shoved into an oven...
Think of all the friends and family you lost...


Happy Hanukaust!


You claim six million, i wish it were true
But you're a pack of lying fucking jews
A holocaust memorial is built on the land
Where most of your relatives are buried in the sand
In bulldozed graves to cover the pollution...
Too bad you weren't part of the final solution
Wearing long sleeves to cover your tattoo
Will never hide the fact that you're a dirty jew
Think of all the friends and family you lost...


Happy Hanukaust!


Light the menorah and think of the time
When you sold out your neighbors for a handful of dimes
All those filthy jews... they must have been pissed,
They couldn't buy their way onto Schindler's list
Think of all the friends and family you lost...


Happy Hanukaust!
56898.2248566784

BlogTerrorist said...

Postmorality

If there is one thing humanity needs to hear right now, it is this: "Grow up!" However, this is not the
form of maturity of which is commonly spoken, by which they mean a certain docility and resignation that
allows one to call a job and servitude to social prestige a meaningful life. The usage here refers to the
ultimate maturity, which is an ability to accept reality in all of its positive and negative dimensions,
and resolve to act upon it as is necessary.

We could call this ultimate maturity "realism," because when all the semantic arguments are brushed
aside, and all the ontological concerns shown to be aspects of the same question, we realize that most of
human discourse centers on objects of perception without stopping, first, to form a comprehensive system.
Since there is no explanation for our world as a whole, what replaces logic is an ability to analyze
details intently, without ever discovering the interconnection between data.

This basic failing is akin to us as humans selecting to believe only that which originates in a human
mind, and to relegate reality - the interaction of beings, natural forces, and objects in our physical
real-time world - to second-class status. Whether we pick materialism or dualism, both extremes serve us
badly by taking our attention away from an observation of life and pointing it toward arbitrary
linguistic problems that do not necessarily related to reality.

As such, realism is the king of all scientific outlooks, and herein is its paradox: although we all live
in the same world, not all have the fineness of perceptual analysis to understand realism. Most people
not only "would prefer to" cling to stolid absolutes that require no interpretation or context to be
applied, but also cannot conceive of any other form of belief system. It is only in our recent (400
years) mania for new customers to not offend that we have made the presumption that all people, if "given
the same advantages," can understand the same complex thoughts.

Thus we have a troubling situation, onto which another is rapidly piled: a nearly indefinable belief
based upon a reality in which we all live, but which we perceive to different degrees. Luckily, nature
makes this easy for us, and the best-bred among us are the ones who - owing to greater intelligence,
health and moral character - are able to perceive not only what is, in an immediate sense, but its
function, even over time. These are realists who often move to the next level, which is idealism.

Idealism in the vernacular means something different from philosophical idealism; in philosophical
idealism, one suggests that the world is (a) composed of thought or (b) operates in a similar method to
thought; the two are roughly conflatable, in that if the world operates as thoughts, on the high level of
abstraction at which philosophy works, it might as well be thought. Still, even the most spacy of the
idealists affirm realism as the basis for their idealism. How does this work?

What we call science is the process of deducing structural functions to our world, and then using those
to in turn predict responses to certain events or actions. When we understand how our world works
(realism), we can then turn toward the question of its manipulation (idealism), which is subdivided into
questions of how, which relate directly to our degree of realistic perception, and why, which are more
akin to the goal-setting tendencies of idealism. Realism is perception; idealism is a study of design
both in perception and moral action.

Of course, balancing these two ideas is quite a challenge for almost anyone, and only the smarter ones
among us can do it - but among Indo-Europeans, this is not as small of a population as one might think.
Although the dumbest among us make themselves known as the loudest, there is usually a silent group who
function at a high level of efficiency and care deeply about doing the right thing; these however lack
the impetus to draw attention to themselves, as they already understand a spiritual principle by which
self is secondary to whole. These people understand the secret of nihilism.

Unlike most philosophical systems, which are based on achieving an ideal or asserting a value as higher
than others, nihilism is a discipline. It's a way of training your mind to look at the world, and from
it, as in any fully-developed philosophical system, comes an explanation of the entirety of philosophy as
opened for us by the initial realizations of nihilism. Once again, it's not for everyone; if you don't
get it, you might not be ready, and many among us will never be ready, as they literally lack the
circuitry to understand it. Much as you cannot educate a kitchen blender into a supercomputer, you cannot
make a philosophical genius out of the average mind.

Nihilism seems a paradox. It denies all value, thus obliterating the objective/subjective and mind/body
divisions favored by dualists, yet it upholds the idea of abstract structure ("design") behind our
cosmos, as when one denies value one turns to function, specifically function of the physical world. It
is not, however, materialism, as materialism champions a faith that material comfort and individual
survival are the highest goals that exist; most likely, those who are materialists lack the circuitry to
go further. Nihilism is a form of idealism, in that it posits an order to the universe that can be
understood through logic, but rejects value-judgments as a method of doing this; don't categorize and
classify, suggests nihilism, but describe. Describe structure, not physicality or emotionality.

In this we achieve the beginnings of a fully mature philosophy, something akin to the "pragmatic
idealism" Nietzsche described or the pessimistic Hindu-inspired idealism of Schopenhauer; it is
reminiscent of the beliefs of early Greco-Roman civilizations, where the gods personified natural forces
and were beyond any form of "moral judgment," or classification into good and evil. When the ashes settle
over the last thousand years of Western civilization, it will quickly become clear that moral
classification led us to a kind of linear thought that detached us from a study of systemics, and thus
allowed us to do ludicrously destructive things in the name of details - the individual, an absolute
moral principle, or the need to make some cold hard cash.

One of the best aspects of nihilism and cosmic idealism alike is their rejection of absolute moral
judgments, meaning any type of rule that applies without context and to all people alike. The simplest
example is the hypocrisy over murder in the West; we say murder is wrong, and then murder people for
committing murder. A nihilist avoids the initial error by never saying "murder is wrong," but instead,
electing to murder those who threaten whatever values are held dear. A rapid stratification appears among
human beings at this point, because depending on where we are on the intelligence-moral character scale,
we value different things. Those who are at the higher end of such a scale have valuable opinions, and
the rest... should probably be oppressed.

All philosophical concepts are interrelated, and every philosophical system uses a core concept as an
introduction to all other parts of philosophy; if your system is idealism, for example, you translate all
other philosophical questions into idealist vocabulary, and then analyze them and synthesize responses
from that point. A nihilist system is no different. Nihilism is both radically different from
Christianity, but agrees with it on many points, much as it does with Hinduism and other cosmic idealist
systems. If it has an enemy, it would be the lower-level systems, like materialism and superstition,
which rules out Judaism and Voodoo.

However, any good nihilist does apprehend quickly why in ancient societies the principle of karma/caste
was rapidly attached to a postmoral system: if there is no prohibition against killing, one had better
limit that function to those who know enough to handle it. In the same way we do not give firearms to
three-year-olds, certain privileges must be earned by those who show aptitude and character for them. As
most of the questions of philosophy are complicated enough to take a lifetime, ancient societies tended
to breed people for these roles, thus producing the original definition of aristocracy: the
philosopher-kings and warrior-kings who knew how to wield the power they had.

A modern comparison to this is any form of martial art. The students are taught slowly to take on the
powers of a fully capable fighter, so that alongside raw technique they may absorb years of wisdom - and
be sent away by their teachers if they are psychopaths or otherwise defective. Just as one does not teach
post-911 Arab students to take off in planes but not land them, one does not teach nutcases to kill with
a punch. The caste system is part of this karmic order in that it is recognized that, with each advance
in breeding, the design of the next generation changes; those designs are most likely to function as
their ancestors did. As a result, one creates groups like aristocracies which are bred for the finest
traits and pass them along to their offspring.

This system works surprisingly well. Outside of a few defectives, most people have the abilities of their
parents, if developed by education. Even more importantly, they have the moral inclination and traits of
their parents, and therefore make similar types of decisions. The power of nihilism and postmorality in
ancient societies was kept among those who had for generations proven themselves able to wield it; this
is a more effective system than our modern one, which supposes that "anyone" could be effective with this
kind of power, so we give it to them and hope they don't screw up. Remember that during election year.

What we refer to as postmoralism was designed for elites by breeding, as it is a complex system.
Essentially, traditional "Western" (Judeo-Christian) morality is designed around simple rulesets: evil is
bad, murder is evil, therefore if you murder, you are evil and we should murder you. Postmoral tradition,
as mentioned above, does not waste time banning murder. It asks, simply, was the murder fortunate? which
means: did the murder increase the elegance and graceful function of a natural order? If one has murdered
a child molestor, order is increased and made better; if you murder a child who otherwise would likely
done great things, you are probably a psychopath and should be murdered.

In warfare, for example, murder was viewed as glorious in the idealistic tradition, as those who lost
lives had done so in fulfilment of their place in a natural order, and in doing so, had risen a level in
the karmic cycle by not shirking from what must be done. Even more, victims were sacrifices to the gods
of the nature, and had fulfilled their own role; material fortunes came second to spiritual ones (a
complete reversal of the modern logic). One did not weep for a conquered enemy, but sang for the whole of
nature, as in the growth of better people a more logical order was instituted.

Other examples come to mind. Idealists tended to treat their women better than any other group; they gave
them privileges, had laws against their mistreatment, and tended to murder and mutilate those who
committed rape, incest, and assault in peacetime. In war, it was different; rape of a conquered enemy was
viewed as a chance to increase the breeding potential of that tribe, and was thus a joyful occurrence. If
a warrior with IQ of 140 raped a woman with IQ of 85, the logic went, she received an upgrade (payable in
next generation) of some IQ points, thus all was cool. It's important to note, of course, that idealists
did not engage in world wars for economic and political commodities, thus it's impossible to compare
their actions to those of a modern time.

Another example is money. For those who deserved money as a means of achieving their function, it was
viewed as a natural right and something not to be questioned; for those who did not have such a use, it
was seen as suspect to care too much about it. If you have enough to live and retire, what is the need
for desiring more? - they viewed it in the same way our current society views people who spend their
entire income on pornography and lubricant: obsessive. Money was something granted by the gods for a
purpose, not a purpose in itself, as it is in modernity.

Unfortunately, this system was replaced with a one-size-fits-all system, in which postmoral rules cannot
apply, because they must apply to everyone, equally, in order to be "fair." As one might guess, such a
system was not created by the few highly intelligent ones, but by the masses of unstable and
unspecialized people who inherently fear those who might be more capable than they. The masses won by
numbers, and overwhelmed their leaders and aristocracy, and that brought us the downfall of Greece, of
Rome, and the future downfall of America. It also brought us absolute moral judgment and "good"/"evil."

Now that America has run its course, and it has become clear to even liberals that the system is
collapsing under its own weight and paradox, the idea of a postmoral society is again considered. And, as
all concepts are linked, people are again considering the concept of an aristocracy of our most capable
to wield the kind of unfettered power that such a civilization allows. Creating rigid moral rules, and
then having checks and balances on leaders, hasn't worked; not only has corruption flourished, but we've
been unable to make necessary long-term decisions.

While our system is reassuring to those who fear they are inadequate, it has traded sanity for the
accomodation of those who are defective or underperforming, and not surprisingly, the results have been
terrible. This is why humanity needs to "Grow up!" and realize that we're not all equal, and we need some
qualified leaders fast, before we make ourselves miserable and then in short order, exterminate ourselves
and all that we care about. To take that step, we need to go down the winding path from realism to
idealism through nihilism, and in doing so, to cultivate in ourselves a new maturity.
52087.6739722836

BlogTerrorist said...

School District to recognize "Ebonics" as a foreign language

7/21/05 - UPI

It used to be called Jive.

A series of slang words grouped together in primitive ways that is spoken by the lowest of evolved humanoids.

Then one alleged educator renamed jive 'ebonics' to somehow
grant respectability to this nigger noise.

Now A school district in Southern California has approved the affirmation and recognition of Ebonics into its curriculum in an
attempt to help the less evolved students improve academic performance.

The San Bernardino Board of Education says a pilot of the policy, known as the Students Accumulating New Knowledge Optimizing Future Accomplishment Initiative, has been implemented at
two city schools.

'Ebonics' or nig-bonics, was recognized as a separate language by the nigger fools at the Oakland, California school board in 1996.

Although the program is aimed at coon students, other students can choose to participate.

Ratibu Jacocks, a member of a coalition of black 'activists' - the Westside Action Group - said they are working with the district to ensure the policy is implemented appropriately.

He welcomes the idea of other ethnic groups lobbying for their own program. "When you are doing what's right, others will follow,' Jacocks said. "We have led the way before the civil-rights movement opened the door for women's rights and other movements."

(How about A White Civil Rights Movement? Why not A special program for German children to embrace their culture?
Is it racist for whites to have special programs but not for Blacks?)

The Minuteman(militiaman) project

7/20/05 - AP

(Communists and other leftist scum claim that the Minutemen
are racist even though they will let anyone participate regardless
of race. Extremist's use this ploy regularly to demonize whatever
they don't like. These guys are about as racist as Bush is smart;
and we should know!)

The minuteman Project is an volunteer movement that vows to guard the United States from the wave of brownskin Spic Scum. Some of the minutemen are nonwhite like Carl Whitaker who runs the Tennessee Volunteer Minutemen. Carl is an subhuman injun who
works to expose those who employ illegal aliens.

At least 40 groups opposing illegal immigration have popped up nationally, inspired by the Minuteman Project that rallied hundreds
this year to patrol the Mexican border in Arizona.

President Boy George has called the movement vigilantism.

The Minuteman Project itself has generated chapters in 18 states, from California to Utah, Minnesota and Maine. The Tennessee group and others like it have no direct affiliation but share a common goal.

At the Department of Homeland Security, whose authority includes patrolling borders and enforcing immigration laws, response to Minuteman-type activism is reserved.

"Homeland security is a shared responsibility, and the department believes the American public plays a critical role in helping to defend the homeland," agency spokesman Jarrod Agen said from Washington. "But as far doing an investigation or anything beyond giving us a heads-up, that should be handled by trained law enforcement."

Non whites and commies attack the Minutemen

7/20/05 - Newswire

Jim Gilchrist the founder of The Minuteman Project experienced the worst of America. He witnessed the literal siege of VFW Post #2080 by about 60 belligerent, death-threatening mud animals twice July 16th. The Caucasian-hating members of the subhuman organization known as the Mexican brown berets, stormed the VFW Lodge, damaging signs and other property. They were eventually repelled
by the late-arriving San Diego County Sheriff's Dept.

No arrests were made.

The rampage was orchestrated by Armando Navarro, a known Spic commie, who holds a comfortable, taxpayer funded, tenured position as a professor at the University of California - Riverside, Ca., and who has devoted his life to promoting the Spic conquest of the seven southwestern US states. He calls for the conquest to be carried
out by gunpoint, if necessary.

One California Minuteman volunteer, Jim Woods, was physically assaulted by a gang of ten of Navarro's thugs as he sat in his car alone at a border outpost. He was physically restrained in his car seat by the brown berets, who threatened to kill him. They stole his keys from the ignition and left him stranded without food or water for several hours. When Jim Woods identified two of the gang members to the Sheriff's Dept. and asked for an arrest, no action was taken by the Sheriff's deputies. One deputy just responded to Mr. Wood's plea for help with "Oh, you just lost your keys," despite repeated pleas to the contrary from Mr. Woods.

Forced crackdown on Illegals incite governors to issue threat

7/19/05 - Associate Press

Fees for a new driver's license have been threatened to triple.
Lines at motor vehicles offices could stretch out the door.

(The sky is falling!)

Governors threatened that states and consumers would get screwed because of the push to turn Drivers licenses into a national ID card.

The new federal law called the REAL ID Act was passed in
June as part of an $82 billion military spending bill.

By 2008, states must begin to verify whether license applicants are American citizens or legal residents of the United States.

Ideally this will prevent states from handing out drivers licenses to any illegal alien that applies. Many states like Oregon hand out drivers licenses without verifying citizenship. Once you have a license
(which is really your government ID card) you then have de facto citizenship.

That deadline brought the first question in a closed-door session between governors and federal officials on homeland security
Monday at the National Governors Association meeting.

The two groups also talked about pressures on National Guard troops, and steps to better integrate state and local law enforcement with federal efforts to prevent terrorist attacks, governors said as they wrapped up their summer meeting.

After meeting privately with governors, Homeland Security Jewboy
Michael Chertoff said the new law could create opportunities to protect people against identity theft. He also offered assurances that his agency would work cooperatively with states. "What we want is to find a common plan that works for everybody, but we'll also take into account the natural differences states have," Chertoff said.

Democrat Bill Richardson of New Mexico said "denying illegal immigrants a driver's license just makes it harder for government
and law enforcement to keep track of them. New Mexico allows illegal aliens to get Drivers licenses. "

(Why don't we just seal the damned borders with electrified fences and minefields? If Ariel Sharon can fence in the Palestinians in
in palestine, why can't be be allowed we fence in our country? Next the government should find the Spics here and bring them home:
either on a bus in they go along willingly or in a box if they resist.
We wouldn't have to keep track of the Beanors or worry about them being uninsured motorists if they were back in the turd-world where their slime belongs!)

Iraqi war continues out of control

7/17/05 - Aljazerra

Deadly violence across Iraq continues, leaving more than 100
people dead and nearly 300 wounded in bombings since 7/14.

Attacks in Baghdad on Sunday morning claimed the lives of 10 people, including five members of the Iraqi security forces, after
police convoys were bombed, an Interior Ministry official said.

The attacks follow Saturday's devastating bombing at the southern town of al-Musayyib, when a man detonated himself near a tanker of liquefied gas, killing at least 70 people and wounding 95, according to hospital sources.

The explosion also set the central square, cars and shops ablaze.

The first attack on Sunday killed two policemen and one civilian
in the eastern New Baghdad neighborhood, police 1st Lieutenant Muhammad Jasim said. Seven policemen and one civilian were also wounded, some seriously.

About an hour later a second car bomb exploded near a police convoy near the Bayaa bus station in southern Baghdad, killing three police commandos and four civilians, police Captain Talib Thamir said. Three civilians were also injured in that blast.

"I was 100 meters away when I saw the fireball. It was enormous... People were burning in their cars. We had to get them out with hooks," said Khodr Abbas.

"I saw women in the burning houses crying for help and we couldn't do a thing," he said.

One of those injured, Ammar al-Karaguili, 40, said he saw disparate parents throwing their children out of windows and from balconies to escape the inferno.

In other violence, a US soldier was killed and two more wounded by an improvised explosive device in the northern Kirkuk province of Iraq, the US military said.

This brought to 1757 the number of US military personnel killed in
Iraq since the March 2003 invasion: according to a tally based on
the slanted Pentagon figures.

KKK Leader: 1979 Shootings Were Self Defense

7/17/05 - Fox Jews

A former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan took the stand at a public hearing Saturday and said those who fired on people at a "Death to the Klan" march more than 25 years ago did so in self-defense.

Five people were killed at the Nov. 3, 1979 rally.

"To tell the truth, if you look at the evidence and see what happened,
it was all self-defense," said Gorrell Pierce. "Everybody was participating in a riot."

Pierce, a former Grand Dragon of the Federated Knights of the KKK, spoke at public hearing held by the Greensboro "Truth and Reconciliation Commission".

The "commission" is investigating the deaths at the march organized by the Communist Workers Party that ended when members of the Klan and the American Nazi Party opened fire.

Leaders in Greensboro, a city of 223,000 in central North Carolina, fear the hearings will rekindle old animosities, but organizers hope to uncover what they feel is the untold story behind the shootings and promote healing.

Pierce said fighting between marchers and Klan members ended in shooting because Communists tried to pull a 79-year-old Klansman out of his car and younger Klansmen came to his aid.

He said he had ordered members of his Klan faction not to attend the march. "I regretted it the day it happened," said Pierce.

Several Klansmen were acquitted of murder charges at a state trial. In 1984, federal prosecutors failed to win a conviction against Virgil Griffin, a Klan member from suburban Charlotte who was acquitted of conspiracy to interfere with a federal investigation. Griffin was scheduled to testify later Saturday.

The shootings followed a clash earlier that year between Communists and Klansmen when the Klan showed the film "Birth of a Nation" in nearby China Grove, Pierce said. At the movie, anti-Klan demonstrators confronted them so closely "you could feel each
other's breath," he said.

11 Soldiers Charged in US torture Incidents

7/16/05 - Associated Press

BlogTerrorist said...

Ya, sure, I did it and it felt good, wasting a bunch of niggers in school. I also did plenty of nigger-loving race-traitors. The killing seemed so unreal: Wounded black bodies twisted in pain howling in screams for mercy, I soon put them out of their misery.

I Stanford Malicor was born May 16, 1984 in a town of about 30,000 located in Mississippi. I have no brothers or sisters. My mom, Janice, works as a local restaurant as a bartender. She works hard but can be exceptional bitchy at times. My Dad has been a deputy sheriff for about 14 years. He is a good dad and treats me well, when he isn't getting drunk and knocking around mom and me.

Dad was bad but his abuse didn't cause me to dismiss all the niggers in class. My school life had been crap for years: While in the sixth grade, some crypt gang-bangers started to spread rumors that I enjoyed taking dick up the butt. I guess they thought they would get popular by harassing the alleged "school fag."

I got in a fight with a couple of the rumor spreading niggers but the stories grew worse. My next five years of school was filled with nearly constant mental abuse and the daily ritual of beatings from the chimpmen gangs. I sure the hell didn't want to pack some butt, but the facts didn't matter to the niggers.

Sometimes I prayed for death.

As a cop, dad loved to collect all types of cool weapons. He took me shooting many times; I learned to respect the power of a gun. Dad kept all the stuff in two gun safes in our basement.

It was so cool, my dad had all that good cop stuff: handguns, assault-rifles, shotguns, teargas canisters, etc... Dad's friends on the force had nicknamed him "Officer Rambo". The weapons were always kept locked up and only dad had the key. It was no big deal that we owned guns: we lived in a area where everyone enjoyed firearms.

Few knew that my dad was also a high ranking member in the Almira Knights of The KKK. Dad had no love for niggers but he had to act like it and he played the part very well, when he wasn't beating up niggers for resisting arrest.

I never before considered killing anything or anyone until we got a DBS TV system at home and I started watching CNN. TV news showed me the quickest way to fame: pull the trigger on some subhuman students that deserved to die. Waste yourself a bunch of scumbags and you are instantly a TV celebrity. As time passed I continued to intensely study the reports of school shootings. looking for the best plan: the most kills with the least risk.

The abuse at school was becoming intolerable, the niggers refined torture into a fine art. I sentenced the black bastards to death and started making plans to kill them all.

I still needed a whole lot of guns to accomplish the goal but dad kept the firearms locked up all the time. It took some careful planning, but I did score; I switched dad's gun safe key with a look alike key Sunday morning as he was passed out from the usual vodka binge.

Later that evening, I hid the guns in a ravine next to the school.

Monday was like any other day except that some stoned sambo kicked me in the balls, it didn't hurt much, guess I was getting used to it.

Before 5th period was over I ran from my last class with my teacher screaming "Where are you going?" Quickly I sprinted to my guns stash and began arming. I recovered my dad's M-16 assault-rifle and snapped in a full 120 round drum magazine. I also put on a load bearing vest stuffed with three thirty round magazines and a loaded handgun.

Finally, I put on a backpack containing three recently assembled pipe bombs, wrapped in nails and coated in poison. Nice and deadly surprises for any unlucky soul that got between me and my targets.

I had a copy of the terrorists handbook printed out from the internet. Thanks to the Almira Public Library's free internet computers for the public, I know how to build the most lethal of destructive devices.

Running at full speed while loaded down with gear was quite difficult. I was very careful not to be seen until it was too late for the coons. The plan was to attack just right after school, when all the niggers were getting out of class. The moment of vengeance was at hand!

As the bell ringed the monkeys came out. I ran from my hiding place, holding the M-16 at hip level, and positioned myself in front of the sub-human trash. It was time to send these niggers back to hell from where they came. I held down the trigger and sprayed full-auto hollow-point bullets into the black mass.

I can remember the overwhelming rush of pleasure as the first africans were ripped apart. It felt like I was in A theatre watching, in slow motion, a movie of myself making many bodies.

It was grand: all the niggers in front of me screamed and dropped like flies. Those who could, ran back into school with a horrified look of terror on their faces. I stopped shooting, just for a second, because I just had to laugh. All the pain and misery these inferiors had caused me and I was returning it back to them! I squeezed the trigger again and finished off the few nigs who were still alive. Blood from the dead sambos begin flowing into a storm drain as I emptied the drum magazine.

I then reloaded with a 30round banana clip, it was time to move my killing party elsewhere. Leaving the screaming wounded, and the silent dead, I proceeded into the school to shoot any black bastards I could find. For the first time in my life I was truly alive!

The teachers were hiding inside various classrooms like scared rats but it made little difference. My constant assault-rifle fire found human targets.

Black or white didn't matter. These teaching fools had for years poisoned the minds white kids with their diversity race-mixing bullshit. Time for the white race-traitors to die also.

What a pleasure it was killing these people! In the past the faculty had ignored the abuse. Afraid of being labeled "racist" the teachers usually let the niggers run free, like the animals they are, and the whites were the victims.

The air then filled with the sounds of sirens as the cop cars got closer. It was time to move. I proceeded to quench the nearly white hot M-16 machinegun barrel in the vagina of my wounded black English teacher. That sure was more fun than diagramming sentences.

Discarding the M-16, I grabbed my pipe bombs and handgun to waste the pigs.

I waited in ambush behind a blood drenched shrub as three coppers pulled up in their shiny cars. The first car exploded in a ball of fire as an accurately tossed a pipe bomb landed underneath the car, igniting the gas tank. The concussion from the blast knocked me to the ground.

I next shot a nigger piggy in the head with my dad's backup service revolver, while the apeman lay wounded from the pipe bomb blast. However the third piggy was stubborn coonboy and he took my last two pipe bombs to finish off.

It was time to cruise, I ran to my stashed motorcycle and got the hell out of there. While driving off I could still hear the shattered screams of dieing niggers twisting in the grass.

All together it was a great day of racial purifications!

That was the most fun I ever had and hope that other White Power kids get even. Their is no better feeling in the world than spraying lead into a nigger or race-traitor who deserves it, it is a far better choice than suicide!10681.5381070994

BlogTerrorist said...

Modernity
There can be nothing more frustrating than trying to explain something to someone who cannot perceive it. It is not that they will not; if they had that kind of decision on their hands, they could understand. Not did not; they simply lack the ability to, now or forevermore, process the kind of detail required. This type of thinking is not detail-obsessed, but it require that one build a mental picture of the future based on many tiny details, because, and I hope this isn't a news flash, life rarely spells out its plans in big bold letters on the wall in front of you. All myths to the contrary, life is plenty happy to let you wander right up to disaster and linger by it for awhile until, figuring the coast is clear, you take one too many steps and BOOM, it comes crashing down on your ass.

When I tell people that modern society has a great and pervasive disease, the common response is either (a) I don't see it or (b) well, I'm doing okay, so why would I worry? The former is at least honest; the paradoxical bitterness of relativity is that it doesn't excuse one for not seeing the truth, but admits that most people literally have limitations as to how much complexity they can handle, and thus what they can perceive. An idiot sees a house on fire; a genius sees a fire extinguisher in one corner. The second group of people need more analysis, as they claim to have knowledge of impending doom, yet paradoxically, claim it does not affect them. A genius sees a house on fire and gets the fire extinguisher; an idiot simply closes the door to his room - out of sight, out of mind.

So here we are in the world where no one can perceive how deeply screwed things may be. There are thousands of details that must be correlated to see the whole picture. Most people can't drive a car through an intersection in a timely manner, or figure out routine transactions. They are distracted by their own drama, and thus they screw everything up and take forever, then get weepy if confronted. The streets are lined with giant, ugly buildings in which impersonal agencies dole out rigid policies and god help you if you're an exception. Government takes in money and sends out fines and prison sentences for gross violations. Those who are smart avoid the law while ripping people off, legally, and thus have the best of both worlds.

Few notice, but we're steadily consuming more nonrenewable resources. There will be no more gasoline; there's a finite amount. Most people cannot even comprehend that sentence to understand its implications. There is no more land that is going to be created; there is only so much land, and we use more of it each year. Everywhere one looks, the signs are there, if one knows what to look at. Jobs are hilarious shuffling of papers and conning of fellow humans into believing one illusion over the other and, thus approved, transferring one sum of money into another. People live for empty, pointless lives. The highpoint of their day is often television, or consumption of products. Interpersonal relations consist of attacking others and trying to drag them down to make yourself feel better. What kind of life is this?

One thing that astounds any sane observer is how people are isolated mentally in modern society. For example, today I saw some guy in a wheelchair selling candy at an intersection. He'd pull up right beside cars and sell you M

BlogTerrorist said...

02/26/2005 Technology: Typical Macintosh User
Like everything else in this inane time, computer marketing is a lie. Apple doesn't sell you a computer, they sell you a lifestyle, of tolerance and freestylin' it your own way, as it's more important to be dramatic about your self than to do anything important with life...

80353.9250042381

BlogTerrorist said...

02/26/2005 Technology: Typical Macintosh User
Like everything else in this inane time, computer marketing is a lie. Apple doesn't sell you a computer, they sell you a lifestyle, of tolerance and freestylin' it your own way, as it's more important to be dramatic about your self than to do anything important with life...

41806.4043740821

BlogTerrorist said...

Progress versus Getting it Right

A short note on the nature of life: all of what goes on in the human mind is pure creation, construction,
words and symbols and designs used to describe something that exists outside of our minds. That doesn't
mean that it isn't an objectively-functioning world out there; try putting your hand in a moving blender
and you'll see the world is very consistent in its actions. However, this world is sometimes maintained
by some very spacy ideas, like chaos theory or cosmic idealism, and may not even be "real" in any sense
of physical matter existing. However, insofar as events go on in it, it is "real" and you are subject to
the forces of its reality.

Being able to understand both the unreality of life, and its mundane but effective physicality, is the
essence of what is required to be a realist. Realists do not trouble themselves by trying to explain away
reality with bad science or bad religion. They look at the world, take good as well as bad, and adapt.
This is their ultimate game and goal and it makes sense, if one is a complex organism who cares about
function, to take this course of action.

Fools, on the other hand, either deny significance beyond the material, or assert the existence of some
fantasy world that is either more important than reality or "describes" reality in some way that is
assumed to be important. They confuse our evaluation of the world (mind) with its actuality (body), and
thus we call them dualists, a term that in itself is dual: dualists believe in a world beyond this one,
and most commonly construct it along the lines of mind/body separation. Those of us who are realists are
unitivists: we believe the physical world, our minds, and any significance or values abstracted from
those are part of a contiguous, rational system (although not rational in a linear sense).

Because I am a late-night psychopath reader who likes a good story more than the pretentious crap that
passes for literature of late (two exceptions: Tom Wolfe and William Gibson), I found myself digging into
"Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton. Yes, yes, I know, it's garbage - but only on the surface. Crichton's
goal, since the wildly successful "Andromeda Strain" that kept him from having to practice medicine, has
been to wrap a small amount of adventure around a discussion of scientific implications. Unlike most
scientists, with the possible exception of Carl Sagan, Crichton directs his critical eye not toward the
technology itself but toward its meaning via its effect on the world and our lives.

As such, he's both a brutal cynic, and a breathtaking concept writer, in that he grasps exactly what is
scaring us at any given time and explains it in such a way that those of average or higher IQ can
perceive its strengths and dangers. He's good at not becoming a hysterical liberal, but hasn't yet lapsed
into the complacent "as long as the stock market's still up" attitude of most American/English-style
"conservatives." What's great about this book is that he takes issue with modern society's explosion of
technology, and points out that no one considers the consequences.

Ian Malcolm, a (homosexual) British mathematician, is the voice of the author in this work; not only do
quotes from him introduce each chapter, but his lengthy monologues summarize one of the two major topic
areas of this book. The first, obviously, is genetic engineering - bringing an ancient form back to life.
It is counterbalanced by a study of chaos theory, in which Crichton attempts to explain how natural
systems work. The result shows hard science in the grips of forces its unleashers cannot understand,
namely the tendencies of systems to achieve and lose balance, and this metaphor forms the basis of
Crichton's lesson to modern science.

He uses harsh words for recent epochs. Most technical people and scientists are "thintelligent," Malcolm
says, meaning that they can function well in a high-intensity narrow bandwidth of thought, but are lost
to practical implications or systemic thinking. Crichton uses the words linear thinking several times,
and lambasts the west for adopting this form of thought, although he does not trace it to its
Jewish-Christian roots (Crichton grew up in a Jewish neighborhood in NYC, but seems to be a gentile). He
illustrates this crisis several times through the behavior of his characters, who are always just saying
"Well, now our technology is working again" when some dinosaur comes crashing through the wall and eats a
coworker.

It's a form of subtle comedy usually found in horror movies. Crichton makes his points, however, and
since this writing is not here to review the book, let us move on to the next point: Crichton also makes
a classic error of the type made by scientists and not philosophers, and it's nearly unforgivable. He
posits that linear science is "obsolete," and we need to move on, much as we moved on from medieval
times. In this, he reveals his ignorance by adhering to the progressive fallacy.

Espoused by Hegel, lambasted by Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and anyone else with a brain, the progressive
fallacy is that idea that we are always growing toward a "new" higher state of humankind. You can hear
echoes of this in the dumbshits who, if anything is proposed, state they don't want an existing path but
want something "new." It's also found extensively in media and commerce, which benefits quite a bit from
the automatic assumption that of two things, the newer one is better. In a book excoriating linear
science, how about some words for how stupid linear history is?

If one reads widely enough, and deeply enough, it becomes clear that history is linear only insofar as
our measurement of time is (whether time "really is" linear or not is for another debate - we perceive it
as linear; end of story). According to traditionalists and ancient sources, "history" is a process much
like the lives of individuals, by which civilizations are born, grow old and fat, and finally decay into
sordid collapse. Crichton alludes to a scientific version of this philosophy when he notes that
fluctuations in cotton prices over the last century mirror their vicissitudes during the course of an
average day. Why doesn't he again turn his mirror to history?

The answer is that like most of us moderns, he's well-educated in linear thinking in ways even he, not a
dumb man by any stretch, cannot recognize. He's like Hegel: a well-intentioned innocent who needed to be
more warlike and cruel in his thinking, slicing away the ideas that mostly made sense and replacing them
with ideas that always did. The progressive view of history is with us always, whether in television
commercials or political speeches. It's a convenient way of assuming that no one else has seen what we
have, and that we're "unique" in this time - all of which seems to me to be a way of staving off death.

Even if our technology never occurred on earth before, and our societies have encountered configurations
that did not previously exist, when looked at from a higher-level design analysis, nothing that is
happening now has not happened in the past - and the consequences of our now are just as obvious as they
were for past societies. It's another way of saying that, while the scenery might change, the play
doesn't - the emotions and motivations of the actors are as real in one time as in another. Thus what
ancient Greeks observed is still observable and relevant today, as are observations that are much older.

What Crichton bemoans - our tendency to see the world only through the eyes of science, and thus how we
can change raw materials into some kind of product - has its roots in many things. How to explain that?
Quite simply: it's a lower level of thinking than the enlightened thinking required to see what must be
done. When one gets over the linear model of history, and sees past the "progressive" view, it becomes
clear that there are no "new" thoughts, only thoughts in new contexts with varying degrees of correct and
incorrect adaptation to our situation. This is realism, and only in realism do we find an escape from the
twin barriers of materialism and dualistic idealism.

I could wax on with more philosophical terms, but you can look them up - I recommend the Cambridge
Encyclopedia of Philosophy and an Oxford English Dictionary, for starters (if not, there's SEP). At some
point even talking too much on any topic makes it wanking, as one either is able to see the truth of the
situation, or casting around blindly - more of something (experience, wisdom, intelligence, time) is
needed. Part of what Crichton's saying that is also being said in this article is simply that life is
real, and when we make decisions, we should place the airy logic secondary to a practical view of life as
something in which we live.

Crichton points out that we cannot destroy life on earth, which is a way of saying that, no matter how
much humanity screws up, life will come back, although it will not be as developed as as great as what we
have now; it's a backhanded slam at humanity's recklessness. In saying this, he communicates something
important: we should make the right decisions for our own benefit, as right now, we're in a
self-destructive tailspin of bad values. Having now experienced enough of life, both sane (good) and
insane (destructive), I can say that I prefer sane because destructive values always lead to devolution
and thus more boring existences.

Further, if Crichton ever transcends his linear view of history, he'll come upon a great truth of our
world: to live as a Romantic is the only way to live, and if one is a Romantic, one does not hunger for
"new" things, but for what is eternally true. One does not need the "progressive" view of history in
order to realize that a well-fought battle, a lifelong love, a feast of friends, etc. is an eternally
good - sane, adaptive, evolutionary, logical - thing. We rail against "good" and "evil" because they
remove judgment from practicality into some weird abstraction, and from that we get a progressive view of
history, moving from ancient evil to modern good. I wish the dinosaurs would tear that one down and throw
it into the fires, as humanity would be healthier if in its absence it instead focused on reality.

July 17, 2005
5675.55617567847

BlogTerrorist said...

02/26/2005 Technology: Typical Macintosh User
Like everything else in this inane time, computer marketing is a lie. Apple doesn't sell you a computer, they sell you a lifestyle, of tolerance and freestylin' it your own way, as it's more important to be dramatic about your self than to do anything important with life...

40929.9810029588

BlogTerrorist said...

What did one gay sperm say to another?
"How do we find an egg in all of this shit?"

What does GAY really stand for?
Got Aids Yet?

How do you know that you have walked into a homosexual church service?
Only half the congregation are kneeling!

How many faggots does it take to put in a light bulb?
Only one.
but it takes an entire emergency room to remove it!

What is the first symptom of AIDS?
An extreme pain in the ass!

What's the definition of tender love?
Two faggots with hemorrhoids!

Two really sick faggots were visiting the zoo,
when they found themselves at the gorilla cage.
The gorilla was sitting there with a huge erection.
Unable to contain himself the first queer reaches
inside the cage and tries to touch the huge cock.
As soon as arm goes into the cage the gorilla grabs him,
takes him into the cage, slams him on the floor and fucks him senseless.
A few days later in hospital the fag's boyfriend visits him and said, "Does it hurt?"
"Hurt? Hurt?" cried out the raped faggot, "Of course it hurts.
He hasn't phoned and he hasn't written�!"

How do you get four faggots to share one bar stool?
Turn it upside down and hand them a bucket of grease!

What do call a queer who doesn't have AIDS?
A lucky cocksucker!

How do faggots spell relief?
N-O-A-I-D-S!

What is a shit?
A faggots wet dream!

What does AIDS stand for?
Asshole Injected Death Sentence!

How can you tell if a household is homosexual?
The welcome mat reads 'Please wipe Your Knees!'

What do you call two faggots on a waterbed?
A fruit float!

Why are faggots always the first out of burning buildings?
Because they already have their shit packed!

Why can't scientist's discover a cure for AIDS?
Because they can't get the laboratory mice to fuck each other up the ass!

What do you call a fag dentist?
The tooth fairy of course!

Two queers are in a hot tub pushing a big turd back and forth in the water. Another fag walked in and asked, "What the hell are you two doing?"
"We are teaching our baby how to swim!"

What's a homosexual masochist?
A sucker for punishment!

Two faggots were on a sunny beach. The first one said, "Shall I put the umbrella up?" "Yes," replied the second homo, "But don't open it, I'm a bit sore!"

What do you call a fag bar with no stools?
A fruit stand!

If three faggots are in bed together what do you call the one in the middle?
A double adapter!

What do you call the foreskin on a faggot?
Mudflaps!

How can you tell if a bank robber is a faggot?
He ties up the safe and blows the Security Guard!

What happened when three faggots attacked a woman?
Two of them held her down and the other did her hair!

Did you hear about the two fags who had an argument in a gay bar?
They went outside and exchanged blows!

Why did the faggot think his boyfriend was cheating on him?
Because he kept coming home shitfaced!

What's the worst thing a straight guy can say in a gay bar?
Can you push my stool in please?!

Why was the queer sacked from his job in the sperm bank?
He was caught drinking on the job!

What do you give a queer with AIDS for Christmas?
Cancer!

Two sick fags were taking a shower with each other.
The phone rings and Lance says to Rod,
"I will be right back darling, so don't start without me!"
After a minute or so Lance comes back,
and sees cum splattered all over the shower wall.
"I thought I told you not to start without me!"
replied Rod, "I didn't start without you, I just farted!"

What's the greatest thing about AIDS?
It can turn a fruit into a vegetable!

What do you call a fag milkman?
A dairy queen!

An obviously gay guy swished onto a bus to face a derogatory sneer from the massive bus driver.
"Faggot! growled the driver, "Where's your pearls?"
"Pearls with corduroy?" shrieked the gay, "Are you mad!"

What do fags call hemorrhoids?
Speed bumps!

How do you know you're at a gay BBQ?
The hotdogs taste like shit!40540.5303432071

BlogTerrorist said...

One World/Archangel
If you find this human world quite empty, as many do, and see it as the death march that it is, as many do, then whatever part of you has not given up wants to fix these problems, and make something better. This is a natural response to error, but by the nature of time, you recognize quickly that you cannot look toward the problems of today, but that you must look toward creating something for tomorrow which lacks these problems. You must think not in terms of correcting, but redesigning, the world we have now.

Think of it in biological terms. A healthy body does not succumb to disease; it is only when weakened, or old, that it is carried off. Similarly, no society succumbs entirely to outside assault, even by whichever group of parasites seems most likely to do it this week (Masons, Jews, Scientologists, Democrats, Negroes). Our society had to first weaken itself from within before the seeds of collapse could be sowed; for this reason, it is clear that design errors exist. Other observable correlations support this idea.

What this means is that when we speak of change, we cannot speak of fixes to the existing order, but designing a new order; however, our pragmatic minds remind us that this can be done be re-arranging the parts which compose this whole, and orienting them around healthier ideas than those which created the failing design of our present society. We work toward a new order. No single fix or idea can represent this new order. It must represent itself as all things which are not illusion do: by being a body of values which address reality, and find a sensible way of adapting and harmonizing to it, in dramatic contrast to our collapsing civilization built on illusion.

World collapse has been visible for some centuries now, but only to those with the foresight to predict the paths people will take in the grips of its concepts. It is not the concept itself that can be analyzed, in the present tense, but its effects in the coming iterations of its idea, because ideas grow as villages become cities, with each new generation adding its own layer of interpretation and creation to a core concept. To most people, until now, these concepts have been things on paper or in speeches, but now we are seeing not only how they have developed, but what effects they have brought.

In the West, the native ethnic populations of Indo-Europeans are breeding themselves into dysfunction. Those who embrace a world of ten-hour workdays, credit cards and trying not to offend others are well-adapted to a modern society, and breed, but by their nature, these people are not leaders; they are not creators; they are not able to think on the level of the whole. Rather, they succeed because they think only in terms of what is immediately before them, and thus are blithely unconcerned with the apocalyptic nature of the course upon which the West has embarked. It is not that they do not care. They are unable to see what lies ahead, and thus cannot care.

The intelligent are driven mad by this situation, as are those who would make good leaders, and so they tend to suicide or become so socially unacceptable that they do not breed and thus, as part of our society, die out; there are fewer geniuses than, but more "brilliant" people who can do one task well without a thought for its holistic consequences, than ever before. Years of this has weakened our values, and replaced our cultures with television, popular music, movies and the kind of sage wisdom that is necessary to turn off one's mind and focus on making money. After many generations, this consequence has become obvious.

Finally, our industries begin to collapse, having for years made money off of an expanding population of capable people; through several bad breeding practices, these have been replaced with the less competent, and thus the free growth has ended. All the new jobs are for drones, and the opportunities that were once abundant are now concentrated into corporate monopolies that value allegiance more than ability. We have finally taken up the open land, killed off the free-ranging game, and polluted our seas and air to such a degree that we are prisoners in our own technological world. We require its filtered air and water, but even that can't keep out climate change and a lack of natural beauty.

Even worse, our lives are without meaning. There is no community consequence as to what is "good" except obedience to social regulation itself, and therefore there is no way to create something great and have it be praised, since no one recognizes it. There is only serving in schools, jobs, churches, government. As our lives lack any meaning other than comfort and wealth, we have nearly nothing to talk about. There are no heroic goals, except perhaps the creation of an order to replace this antiheroic one. Since we must keep up this happy illusion while denying our deepest-laid problems, we even censor our own thoughts, more effectively than a totalitarian government could.

There is a lack of hope, as well. Most people are drones, so if we develop something exceptional in ourselves, they will at least fail to recognize it, but more likely will detest us for it. Finding people with whom a thinking being could fall in love has become a Holy Grail, one for which most people substitute a compromise, and content themselves with manipulating this person until the inevitable divorce or murder. Changing the system, even for small fixes, requires getting a vast crowd of voters to agree, and that never happens, in the case of complex issues. Depression is so prevalent it has become sublimated, and we cover our vehicles and office cubicles with inspirational slogans.

Such is the face of our reality at this time. When we recognize these factors as a collection, it becomes apparent that our error is fundamental and far-reaching; it is deep within. We are lost. The only glimmer of spirit lies in taking that first precarious step and recognizing this problem, then resolving ourselves to do something about it. In this, we become more cheerful, as there is a thought that it will not always be this way. We even consider the problems that were once invisible to someday be commonplace recognitions of the failure of this time, so that in the future someone might say, "Back then, everyone was depressed because there was no meaning, nothing left to conquer, and we were all tied to one another by a need for self-validation through wealth."

If this writer could convey one thing to you, the reader, it would be to grasp this hope and never let go. Hope should not be passive; when this is called a hope, it is meant as a hope-through-action, or in other terms, a goal. Focus on the future and on what beauty it will bring. Concentrate on how this would be brought about. You feel better already -- ? This alone turns you away from the resignation and boredom of the present time. But here you must be careful.

The tendency in exhausted people is to look for a quick fix, or a single change that will somehow liberate this world. Some find egalitarianism; others find racialism; others find environmentalism, and still others, any number of even more granular issues that can be easily changed, but will offer no change to the whole. Something both more comprehensive, and less dramatic is needed: this new order will be based, as said, upon reality, in contrast to our time based on unreality. For this reason, it is as threatened by the unreality of a single-topic approach in change as it is by the unreality of a stagnant present.

(Words of an Archangel: What we can do now is to establish a comprehensive system of belief, and to work for our own power. Cheer your adversaries, as they make you stronger. Relish victory, but also struggle, and the affirmation of larger dreams. What kind of assertive person would be content with only a career? Higher, bigger, better, more powerful! You can have it all: sustenance, a family, success and a future society that is not so broken. Leave behind your depression and the world opens before you.

It is an eternal truth eternally forgotten that life is basically good, and nothing is yet lost; we are on the downward swing of many centuries of error, but it is better to reign in Hell, than to content oneself with Heaven - a fractured, wrecked, poisoned, and sickening vision that is obviously a fraud to the thinker, but a paradise to the whore and idiot. The signs of ruin are written on the wall; the prophet weeps blood and ocean water; the howls from the forest penetrate even the most solid skyscraper. We are the future. We are victory. If we can concentrate our thoughts, find solutions and then begin applying them, we will build a better system.

There are no Utopias. One would not want them! Nor is there freedom from war, from suffering, from death and from struggle - similarly, we would not want them! What we wish is a chance for greatness, not in the sense of being on Heaven's television network, but in our own hearts and minds, doing what we know to be real, and in sacrifice. Our lives originated in nature, and to natural death we go. All that can give us enjoyment is found in doing what is not "right" in a moral sense, but what is "right" in a natural sense - continuing growth, heroic acts, endless forests, untouched wilderness. This is what our spirits claim!

For now, there is depression enough to cheer a Priest, but to be assertive is to cast off this final slavery, and to attack the world's challenge with all of your might! Poets, write! Musicians, create! You cannot both settle for something mediocre and have enjoyment of life. You must stretch beyond what you know to be yourself, you must exceed what you expect, casting aside the doubt that reigns happily over a humble, resigned and mentally helpless population. We each are the transcendence of that, and a victory for nature in doing so. Cast out from a Heaven of ill creation, we recognize its error, and we cannot - will not - go back; ours is the way of the lonely path.

While some look to the Absolute for a sign, and for approval of their deeds, the independent spirit knows the individual is transitory, as is the universal. There is no determination of life except life itself. All else is error and illusion. Thinking machines like humans become trapped in our own heads, and from this error arises, so we abandon heroism. The opposite is what we should do: we must embrace the world in all of its ugly and beautiful detail. All that we create is ours. Illusion is dying and the world is renewed for us to conquer. Destruction is creation.)

We must convert all of our present ideas, and all of our desires for the coming years, into a single hopeful vision of future. That which exists now can be organized so that its destructive elements are deprecated, and its other elements re-arranged around realistic, idealistic concepts. Those things which hit our personal fear and anger buttons, whether of a political or social nature, must come second to the task of designing a sensible order for the whole. There is one world, and we all live in it; we can create only one order for ourselves, and by doing so, remove our negative influence on this world. The rehabilitation of the West depends on this type of change, and from this renewal can come future creation without the errors that now restrict us.

This alone can be our mantra. There is one reality, and one world - one chance for us to get it right. All that adapts to this world, and recognizes it, and works with what we have is good; all else is error. That which deals in illusion, or singular focus toward unrealistic "idealism" that promises great things but makes us empty inside, is an artifact of the present time and not a direction toward the future. Action is needed, yet it cannot take the same form as our past. Although this seems like more work to accept, it is liberation from the illusion that fogs our brains, and represents a future by which we can as one be healthy again.

65152.3956203479

BlogTerrorist said...

The Paradox of Individuality:


The roots of modernity stem from the importance placed in the individual above all else. Modern society places emphasis on society as a collection of individuals, rather than on society as a unit of smaller pieces reaching for a goal much as an organism is created out of organs working towards a single goal- sustaining the existence of the whole. Because of this focus on the pieces, fragmented and separated from the whole, consensus can never be achieved, except to the lowest possible values- comfort mainly, as seemingly all other popular values, whether in a physical sense as drives most consumerism, or in a mental sense, as in entertainment and illusions of personal importance, which act to cause the one enjoying them to cease thinking about issues of mortality or accomplishment (or, more specifically, lack thereof).



In order for this happy impotence to continue existing, it requires that every individual be given not only the mental comfort outlined above, but none to excel in any meaningful way, for that would be implying that not everybody is equal, and would shatter the blissful numbness. Echoes of "Brave New World" and "Paradise Lost" should be ringing loudly in the reader's head right now; in guaranteeing comfort and a comfortable self-esteem for all, it stifles all potential towards anything other than mediocrity.



The reason that this goes unnoticed by most people is because of the adornments to one's affectation that this system allows. Every person can choose to put on a different superficial role, their own dysfunction, while acting like everyone else. They can choose to buy the Britney Spears CDs because of their complete faith in blind hedonism to lead them through any situation, or they can buy their favorite album from Linkin Park to demonstrate their unfocused anger. At their root, though, they're engaging in the same action- purchasing a plastic product to demonstrate their "uniqueness" for playing this role, which will be forgotten and thrown away within a few months (popular music aims at expressing nothing other than base, meaningless sentiments, and thus is wholly disposable and similar).



Most people, being unable to create great works or take action towards a cause in any form, love this form of individuality because it allows them to think that they're an individual without having to exert any sort of effort to distance themselves from the norm; it allows them to be equally important to the person who writes great symphonies, or is the greatest warrior, despite their complete lack of distinction. Thus, they create mobs which operate wholly to provide a place for the individual's sense of ego, and harshly attack all that pose some threat to their sense of self importance; which happens to be basically anyone who has some distinction in their merit, rather than the role that they play and call a "personality". Thus, the paradox of individuality is revealed; through holding up the concept of the individual above all else, it forces everyone to be the same, undistinguished person.
42341.5900756246

BlogTerrorist said...

What did one gay sperm say to another?
"How do we find an egg in all of this shit?"

What does GAY really stand for?
Got Aids Yet?

How do you know that you have walked into a homosexual church service?
Only half the congregation are kneeling!

How many faggots does it take to put in a light bulb?
Only one.
but it takes an entire emergency room to remove it!

What is the first symptom of AIDS?
An extreme pain in the ass!

What's the definition of tender love?
Two faggots with hemorrhoids!

Two really sick faggots were visiting the zoo,
when they found themselves at the gorilla cage.
The gorilla was sitting there with a huge erection.
Unable to contain himself the first queer reaches
inside the cage and tries to touch the huge cock.
As soon as arm goes into the cage the gorilla grabs him,
takes him into the cage, slams him on the floor and fucks him senseless.
A few days later in hospital the fag's boyfriend visits him and said, "Does it hurt?"
"Hurt? Hurt?" cried out the raped faggot, "Of course it hurts.
He hasn't phoned and he hasn't written�!"

How do you get four faggots to share one bar stool?
Turn it upside down and hand them a bucket of grease!

What do call a queer who doesn't have AIDS?
A lucky cocksucker!

How do faggots spell relief?
N-O-A-I-D-S!

What is a shit?
A faggots wet dream!

What does AIDS stand for?
Asshole Injected Death Sentence!

How can you tell if a household is homosexual?
The welcome mat reads 'Please wipe Your Knees!'

What do you call two faggots on a waterbed?
A fruit float!

Why are faggots always the first out of burning buildings?
Because they already have their shit packed!

Why can't scientist's discover a cure for AIDS?
Because they can't get the laboratory mice to fuck each other up the ass!

What do you call a fag dentist?
The tooth fairy of course!

Two queers are in a hot tub pushing a big turd back and forth in the water. Another fag walked in and asked, "What the hell are you two doing?"
"We are teaching our baby how to swim!"

What's a homosexual masochist?
A sucker for punishment!

Two faggots were on a sunny beach. The first one said, "Shall I put the umbrella up?" "Yes," replied the second homo, "But don't open it, I'm a bit sore!"

What do you call a fag bar with no stools?
A fruit stand!

If three faggots are in bed together what do you call the one in the middle?
A double adapter!

What do you call the foreskin on a faggot?
Mudflaps!

How can you tell if a bank robber is a faggot?
He ties up the safe and blows the Security Guard!

What happened when three faggots attacked a woman?
Two of them held her down and the other did her hair!

Did you hear about the two fags who had an argument in a gay bar?
They went outside and exchanged blows!

Why did the faggot think his boyfriend was cheating on him?
Because he kept coming home shitfaced!

What's the worst thing a straight guy can say in a gay bar?
Can you push my stool in please?!

Why was the queer sacked from his job in the sperm bank?
He was caught drinking on the job!

What do you give a queer with AIDS for Christmas?
Cancer!

Two sick fags were taking a shower with each other.
The phone rings and Lance says to Rod,
"I will be right back darling, so don't start without me!"
After a minute or so Lance comes back,
and sees cum splattered all over the shower wall.
"I thought I told you not to start without me!"
replied Rod, "I didn't start without you, I just farted!"

What's the greatest thing about AIDS?
It can turn a fruit into a vegetable!

What do you call a fag milkman?
A dairy queen!

An obviously gay guy swished onto a bus to face a derogatory sneer from the massive bus driver.
"Faggot! growled the driver, "Where's your pearls?"
"Pearls with corduroy?" shrieked the gay, "Are you mad!"

What do fags call hemorrhoids?
Speed bumps!

How do you know you're at a gay BBQ?
The hotdogs taste like shit!20297.9077243659

BlogTerrorist said...

Progress versus Getting it Right

A short note on the nature of life: all of what goes on in the human mind is pure creation, construction,
words and symbols and designs used to describe something that exists outside of our minds. That doesn't
mean that it isn't an objectively-functioning world out there; try putting your hand in a moving blender
and you'll see the world is very consistent in its actions. However, this world is sometimes maintained
by some very spacy ideas, like chaos theory or cosmic idealism, and may not even be "real" in any sense
of physical matter existing. However, insofar as events go on in it, it is "real" and you are subject to
the forces of its reality.

Being able to understand both the unreality of life, and its mundane but effective physicality, is the
essence of what is required to be a realist. Realists do not trouble themselves by trying to explain away
reality with bad science or bad religion. They look at the world, take good as well as bad, and adapt.
This is their ultimate game and goal and it makes sense, if one is a complex organism who cares about
function, to take this course of action.

Fools, on the other hand, either deny significance beyond the material, or assert the existence of some
fantasy world that is either more important than reality or "describes" reality in some way that is
assumed to be important. They confuse our evaluation of the world (mind) with its actuality (body), and
thus we call them dualists, a term that in itself is dual: dualists believe in a world beyond this one,
and most commonly construct it along the lines of mind/body separation. Those of us who are realists are
unitivists: we believe the physical world, our minds, and any significance or values abstracted from
those are part of a contiguous, rational system (although not rational in a linear sense).

Because I am a late-night psychopath reader who likes a good story more than the pretentious crap that
passes for literature of late (two exceptions: Tom Wolfe and William Gibson), I found myself digging into
"Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton. Yes, yes, I know, it's garbage - but only on the surface. Crichton's
goal, since the wildly successful "Andromeda Strain" that kept him from having to practice medicine, has
been to wrap a small amount of adventure around a discussion of scientific implications. Unlike most
scientists, with the possible exception of Carl Sagan, Crichton directs his critical eye not toward the
technology itself but toward its meaning via its effect on the world and our lives.

As such, he's both a brutal cynic, and a breathtaking concept writer, in that he grasps exactly what is
scaring us at any given time and explains it in such a way that those of average or higher IQ can
perceive its strengths and dangers. He's good at not becoming a hysterical liberal, but hasn't yet lapsed
into the complacent "as long as the stock market's still up" attitude of most American/English-style
"conservatives." What's great about this book is that he takes issue with modern society's explosion of
technology, and points out that no one considers the consequences.

Ian Malcolm, a (homosexual) British mathematician, is the voice of the author in this work; not only do
quotes from him introduce each chapter, but his lengthy monologues summarize one of the two major topic
areas of this book. The first, obviously, is genetic engineering - bringing an ancient form back to life.
It is counterbalanced by a study of chaos theory, in which Crichton attempts to explain how natural
systems work. The result shows hard science in the grips of forces its unleashers cannot understand,
namely the tendencies of systems to achieve and lose balance, and this metaphor forms the basis of
Crichton's lesson to modern science.

He uses harsh words for recent epochs. Most technical people and scientists are "thintelligent," Malcolm
says, meaning that they can function well in a high-intensity narrow bandwidth of thought, but are lost
to practical implications or systemic thinking. Crichton uses the words linear thinking several times,
and lambasts the west for adopting this form of thought, although he does not trace it to its
Jewish-Christian roots (Crichton grew up in a Jewish neighborhood in NYC, but seems to be a gentile). He
illustrates this crisis several times through the behavior of his characters, who are always just saying
"Well, now our technology is working again" when some dinosaur comes crashing through the wall and eats a
coworker.

It's a form of subtle comedy usually found in horror movies. Crichton makes his points, however, and
since this writing is not here to review the book, let us move on to the next point: Crichton also makes
a classic error of the type made by scientists and not philosophers, and it's nearly unforgivable. He
posits that linear science is "obsolete," and we need to move on, much as we moved on from medieval
times. In this, he reveals his ignorance by adhering to the progressive fallacy.

Espoused by Hegel, lambasted by Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and anyone else with a brain, the progressive
fallacy is that idea that we are always growing toward a "new" higher state of humankind. You can hear
echoes of this in the dumbshits who, if anything is proposed, state they don't want an existing path but
want something "new." It's also found extensively in media and commerce, which benefits quite a bit from
the automatic assumption that of two things, the newer one is better. In a book excoriating linear
science, how about some words for how stupid linear history is?

If one reads widely enough, and deeply enough, it becomes clear that history is linear only insofar as
our measurement of time is (whether time "really is" linear or not is for another debate - we perceive it
as linear; end of story). According to traditionalists and ancient sources, "history" is a process much
like the lives of individuals, by which civilizations are born, grow old and fat, and finally decay into
sordid collapse. Crichton alludes to a scientific version of this philosophy when he notes that
fluctuations in cotton prices over the last century mirror their vicissitudes during the course of an
average day. Why doesn't he again turn his mirror to history?

The answer is that like most of us moderns, he's well-educated in linear thinking in ways even he, not a
dumb man by any stretch, cannot recognize. He's like Hegel: a well-intentioned innocent who needed to be
more warlike and cruel in his thinking, slicing away the ideas that mostly made sense and replacing them
with ideas that always did. The progressive view of history is with us always, whether in television
commercials or political speeches. It's a convenient way of assuming that no one else has seen what we
have, and that we're "unique" in this time - all of which seems to me to be a way of staving off death.

Even if our technology never occurred on earth before, and our societies have encountered configurations
that did not previously exist, when looked at from a higher-level design analysis, nothing that is
happening now has not happened in the past - and the consequences of our now are just as obvious as they
were for past societies. It's another way of saying that, while the scenery might change, the play
doesn't - the emotions and motivations of the actors are as real in one time as in another. Thus what
ancient Greeks observed is still observable and relevant today, as are observations that are much older.

What Crichton bemoans - our tendency to see the world only through the eyes of science, and thus how we
can change raw materials into some kind of product - has its roots in many things. How to explain that?
Quite simply: it's a lower level of thinking than the enlightened thinking required to see what must be
done. When one gets over the linear model of history, and sees past the "progressive" view, it becomes
clear that there are no "new" thoughts, only thoughts in new contexts with varying degrees of correct and
incorrect adaptation to our situation. This is realism, and only in realism do we find an escape from the
twin barriers of materialism and dualistic idealism.

I could wax on with more philosophical terms, but you can look them up - I recommend the Cambridge
Encyclopedia of Philosophy and an Oxford English Dictionary, for starters (if not, there's SEP). At some
point even talking too much on any topic makes it wanking, as one either is able to see the truth of the
situation, or casting around blindly - more of something (experience, wisdom, intelligence, time) is
needed. Part of what Crichton's saying that is also being said in this article is simply that life is
real, and when we make decisions, we should place the airy logic secondary to a practical view of life as
something in which we live.

Crichton points out that we cannot destroy life on earth, which is a way of saying that, no matter how
much humanity screws up, life will come back, although it will not be as developed as as great as what we
have now; it's a backhanded slam at humanity's recklessness. In saying this, he communicates something
important: we should make the right decisions for our own benefit, as right now, we're in a
self-destructive tailspin of bad values. Having now experienced enough of life, both sane (good) and
insane (destructive), I can say that I prefer sane because destructive values always lead to devolution
and thus more boring existences.

Further, if Crichton ever transcends his linear view of history, he'll come upon a great truth of our
world: to live as a Romantic is the only way to live, and if one is a Romantic, one does not hunger for
"new" things, but for what is eternally true. One does not need the "progressive" view of history in
order to realize that a well-fought battle, a lifelong love, a feast of friends, etc. is an eternally
good - sane, adaptive, evolutionary, logical - thing. We rail against "good" and "evil" because they
remove judgment from practicality into some weird abstraction, and from that we get a progressive view of
history, moving from ancient evil to modern good. I wish the dinosaurs would tear that one down and throw
it into the fires, as humanity would be healthier if in its absence it instead focused on reality.

July 17, 2005
5971.16020342705

BlogTerrorist said...

Groupthink
Language knows no master. If ever a definitive description of life and the best philosophies possible in it will be written, the people who come after will know how to subvert it: they will, starting from the smallest and working up to the grandest, redefine its words to mean something convenient for their own beliefs; they will bend the belief system toward their own by changing the simple equivalencies of terms. As a result, it will become its own opposite, over time, although the fundamental structure will remain.

A term that became popular in the last decade is "groupthink," referring to the social animal herd-tendency which causes people to bleat out dogma without having any idea of how to understand it. Like most pop-culture diagnoses, it favors an us/them approach which makes everyone in the room feel that, by comprehending the term, they have somehow surpassed all the others, and thus have found a new level of understanding. Yet even the term carries a weight of irony, in that not only can it be misinterpreted, but it can be a form of what it describes, by the very nature of this inclusive, devotional, just-sign-here access to what is perceived as absolute truth.

One seemingly ugly reality that confronts us as developed and not nascent beings is that in order to have civilization, or any kind of belief system, most of the people who work within that group have to be thinking on the same page. Of course, popular literature and movies find this appalling, since what happens to individuality? they cry. The grim face of it is that individuality as an absolute doesn't exist, in the sense that each person would be entirely a creation of their own impulse; this is bad math, which has an equation defining itself without reliance on its starting data or even on mathematics itself. This bad math holds that we are each self-creating gods, having no origin and no reality to which our ideas correspond, and that it's most important that we define ourselves apart from all others. Reality contradicts this.

In reality - that distant place where, when the ego-games of youth and pretense of adulthood are spent - we confront the actual mechanisms that sustain our world, and subsume our "it oughtta be this way" rhetoric to practical, this-is-how-we-survive concerns, for any consensus to exist there must be some degree of similar thinking. Obviously, there will always be critics who point to that and scream "groupthink!" and thus run off smugly congratulating themselves for being different and not falling into the herd, when they have no answers for what must be done as a collective, and thus are in denial of reality itself. This doesn't concern them - their whole agenda, literally, is to make themselves look good and thus to get ahead socially and politically. Obviously, these people are death for us all.

So some degree of group agreement is necessary, but is there a danger of groupthink as well? Certainly, and we cannot see it more clearly than in the Marxist and Rightist groups of today. These are composed of parrots, who rehash the same dogma in new forms but accept it unquestioningly and repeat it. There's a danger in that, in that these people do not understand what they parrot. In most cases, this isn't a problem, since most people lack the aptitude or dedication required to understand politics. When leaders succumb to this, however, a certain kind of spiritual death occurs, but even more importantly, a real-world crisis is engendered: they are no longer testing their ideas against reality, but are constructing castles in the sky and pointing to them saying, "well, it oughtta be" - this is the essence of academic Utopianism, and in the only view of history that matters, that which is measured over millennia and not decades, it is a form of calcification that might appear to be as lively and free-spirited as something else.

Critics - or those who passively point and try to tear down ideas, without suggesting anything to replace them except the airy dogma described above - are notorious for pointing out such groupthink, such conformity, and by finding it in some who uphold an idea using it to "discredit" that idea. Without individuality, they proclaim, there is nothing except groupthink, and therefore the whole concept reeks of submission and conformity, they argue, and therefore should be forgotten. They have forgotten however what philosophers have long learned, which is that any philosophy must pass its own tests. The finger pointers who scream "groupthink!," have, paradoxically, succumbed to groupthink itself by finding in anything but absolute granularity a viable solution.

Granularity is like group consensus; some of it is needed, but taken to a calcified extreme, it becomes death. The extreme of granularity is a popular social pose in almost any era, where people claim to take a little bit of this philosophy, and a little bit of that, and thus to have something "unique" to them which represents them and proves their worth, because after all, no single philosophy was good enough for them, so they must be master of all. This is little more than egomania. No civilization, or organization, can be founded on everyone thinking something different in all ways; that lack of consensus becomes a bickering family in which each member undoes the work of every other, fighting for personal control. Hilariously, the response of most granularists is to argue that such bickering is a sign of healthy government or salutory "diversity of discourse," but somehow, nothing ever changes because each individual is an island, caught up in arguing for his or her own form of control. Thus, business as usual goes on behind closed doors, while the drama of politics and leadership resolves nothing.

Clearly democracy belongs to this form of thinking, as it is based on the granular individual and the importance to the ego of having "individual" ideas and the freedom to "express oneself" by picking some "unique" recombination of philosophy to date and proclaiming that it and only it will suffice for that free-thinking, spirited, "different" individual. But what have democracies accomplished? Outside of the big questions, such as attacking when being attacked or dealing with tsunamis, democracies focus entirely inward and create more detailed bickering. As a result, they advance only the basic concepts of democracy, and miss all of the long-term issues of importance. What was democracy's plan for stopping deforestation? For protecting natural species? For ensuring we do not all become drones of a corporate feudal state? Answer: there was none, but there was plenty of diverse and unique discussion!

The greatest groupthink is granularity, as it rejects the idea that any consensus can occurr without "being" groupthink. I put the term "being" in quotes because, while x may "=" y, in real life things aren't so linear. Thus any consensus may include some groupthink, particularly among those who are incapable of any meaningful contribution; this is not terrible, as it turns them from agents of "unique" and divisive philosophies into those can find accord and act it. This could mean that, in contrast to the last 400 years of history, some sort of actual direction and philosophical unity might visit our civilization. We'd all have to give up the illusion of our "uniqueness," however, and realize that what makes us individuals is not some pretense of political activism, but our individual characters: how heroic we are, what tasks we can do well, our emotional makeup, and the like. You can't make an individual out of a political theory!

This is reality, and it will be called "groupthink" too, because nothing threatens each human as an island like something toward which their theories must correspond in actuality. Pragmatism, or simply, realism - what's wrong with it? We live in the same world, subject to the same natural laws. We have roughly the same bodies. Like it or not, the same forces act within us. Thus, for most decisions, we need roughly the same thing; that's the nature of consensus, and that's how civilizations are formed. This isn't as popular as the idea that we are each gods who think up airy rhetoric and make an individualistic self-image construction out of it. Naturally, the ability to fantasize without consequences is usually preferred to dealing with reality...

But reality it is, and is it so terrible? Once we get over our personal pretense, and that's really all it is, of being "different" for having selected a unique mix of products, friends, political ideologies, and reading matter, we can return to focus on ourselves as actual individuals, and to build up our character from within. Individualism is won by facing what you fear and overcoming it, by making yourself better in every way, and by doing what is right regardless of the cost to your physical life or pretense of uniqueness. You weren't created out of nothing, a god in your own right. No - you're a human being, with parents and history culminating in you. Is that so hard to face?

It's not an easy answer, the kind that occurs in a soundbite and sounds good to everyone, so the issue is dropped and we all go back to socializing. Thus, it's never popular. For many people, it demands the impossible, since they are in wheelchairs of a metaphorical or physical type, and cannot achieve greater character or deeds; however, for most of the people you or I would want to know, it's very possible, and when the misleading groupthink of anti-groupthink is revealed, they can get to work on the real character that underlies the public perception of their selves, something we call self-image. And what would we call this overcoming?

It's an end to passivity, for one thing. What is the opposite of passivity? Anything that is active - activity is a category which can include many items. However, the most basic form of active philosophy is realism, of which nihilism and existentialism and idealism are subsets. When you recognize that physical reality is the ultimate reality, and that all of our ideas must address practical solutions within it, you've taken a big step toward personal autonomy by casting aside the illusion that "unique" airy rhetoric somehow makes you distinct from the uncountable horde of others doing exactly the same thing. Anti-groupthink is the new groupthink, and it's part of the same error that got us into our current mess: being passive instead of active.

Active people do not fear agreeing with others. They are confident in how they perceive reality, and have made up their mins about what must be done, and thus do not fear doing it, even if (insert unpopular person here) advocated the same, or the idea is old, or it offends other people. They simply care about doing what is right in a realistic sense. This is the only way to truly cut out groupthink, because it removes a passive focus - caring about what other people think, or trying to belong to a group - and replaces it with a focus on the task. Any shared idea involves some agreement, but agreement is not groupthink, necessarily; however, agreement not to agree on anything for personal pretense always is. Next time you hear someone shriek "groupthink," ask yourself whether this person is looking at reality including the task, or just jerking off to make a higher self-image for themselves.


51336.8545728217

BlogTerrorist said...

School District to recognize "Ebonics" as a foreign language

7/21/05 - UPI

It used to be called Jive.

A series of slang words grouped together in primitive ways that is spoken by the lowest of evolved humanoids.

Then one alleged educator renamed jive 'ebonics' to somehow
grant respectability to this nigger noise.

Now A school district in Southern California has approved the affirmation and recognition of Ebonics into its curriculum in an
attempt to help the less evolved students improve academic performance.

The San Bernardino Board of Education says a pilot of the policy, known as the Students Accumulating New Knowledge Optimizing Future Accomplishment Initiative, has been implemented at
two city schools.

'Ebonics' or nig-bonics, was recognized as a separate language by the nigger fools at the Oakland, California school board in 1996.

Although the program is aimed at coon students, other students can choose to participate.

Ratibu Jacocks, a member of a coalition of black 'activists' - the Westside Action Group - said they are working with the district to ensure the policy is implemented appropriately.

He welcomes the idea of other ethnic groups lobbying for their own program. "When you are doing what's right, others will follow,' Jacocks said. "We have led the way before the civil-rights movement opened the door for women's rights and other movements."

(How about A White Civil Rights Movement? Why not A special program for German children to embrace their culture?
Is it racist for whites to have special programs but not for Blacks?)

The Minuteman(militiaman) project

7/20/05 - AP

(Communists and other leftist scum claim that the Minutemen
are racist even though they will let anyone participate regardless
of race. Extremist's use this ploy regularly to demonize whatever
they don't like. These guys are about as racist as Bush is smart;
and we should know!)

The minuteman Project is an volunteer movement that vows to guard the United States from the wave of brownskin Spic Scum. Some of the minutemen are nonwhite like Carl Whitaker who runs the Tennessee Volunteer Minutemen. Carl is an subhuman injun who
works to expose those who employ illegal aliens.

At least 40 groups opposing illegal immigration have popped up nationally, inspired by the Minuteman Project that rallied hundreds
this year to patrol the Mexican border in Arizona.

President Boy George has called the movement vigilantism.

The Minuteman Project itself has generated chapters in 18 states, from California to Utah, Minnesota and Maine. The Tennessee group and others like it have no direct affiliation but share a common goal.

At the Department of Homeland Security, whose authority includes patrolling borders and enforcing immigration laws, response to Minuteman-type activism is reserved.

"Homeland security is a shared responsibility, and the department believes the American public plays a critical role in helping to defend the homeland," agency spokesman Jarrod Agen said from Washington. "But as far doing an investigation or anything beyond giving us a heads-up, that should be handled by trained law enforcement."

Non whites and commies attack the Minutemen

7/20/05 - Newswire

Jim Gilchrist the founder of The Minuteman Project experienced the worst of America. He witnessed the literal siege of VFW Post #2080 by about 60 belligerent, death-threatening mud animals twice July 16th. The Caucasian-hating members of the subhuman organization known as the Mexican brown berets, stormed the VFW Lodge, damaging signs and other property. They were eventually repelled
by the late-arriving San Diego County Sheriff's Dept.

No arrests were made.

The rampage was orchestrated by Armando Navarro, a known Spic commie, who holds a comfortable, taxpayer funded, tenured position as a professor at the University of California - Riverside, Ca., and who has devoted his life to promoting the Spic conquest of the seven southwestern US states. He calls for the conquest to be carried
out by gunpoint, if necessary.

One California Minuteman volunteer, Jim Woods, was physically assaulted by a gang of ten of Navarro's thugs as he sat in his car alone at a border outpost. He was physically restrained in his car seat by the brown berets, who threatened to kill him. They stole his keys from the ignition and left him stranded without food or water for several hours. When Jim Woods identified two of the gang members to the Sheriff's Dept. and asked for an arrest, no action was taken by the Sheriff's deputies. One deputy just responded to Mr. Wood's plea for help with "Oh, you just lost your keys," despite repeated pleas to the contrary from Mr. Woods.

Forced crackdown on Illegals incite governors to issue threat

7/19/05 - Associate Press

Fees for a new driver's license have been threatened to triple.
Lines at motor vehicles offices could stretch out the door.

(The sky is falling!)

Governors threatened that states and consumers would get screwed because of the push to turn Drivers licenses into a national ID card.

The new federal law called the REAL ID Act was passed in
June as part of an $82 billion military spending bill.

By 2008, states must begin to verify whether license applicants are American citizens or legal residents of the United States.

Ideally this will prevent states from handing out drivers licenses to any illegal alien that applies. Many states like Oregon hand out drivers licenses without verifying citizenship. Once you have a license
(which is really your government ID card) you then have de facto citizenship.

That deadline brought the first question in a closed-door session between governors and federal officials on homeland security
Monday at the National Governors Association meeting.

The two groups also talked about pressures on National Guard troops, and steps to better integrate state and local law enforcement with federal efforts to prevent terrorist attacks, governors said as they wrapped up their summer meeting.

After meeting privately with governors, Homeland Security Jewboy
Michael Chertoff said the new law could create opportunities to protect people against identity theft. He also offered assurances that his agency would work cooperatively with states. "What we want is to find a common plan that works for everybody, but we'll also take into account the natural differences states have," Chertoff said.

Democrat Bill Richardson of New Mexico said "denying illegal immigrants a driver's license just makes it harder for government
and law enforcement to keep track of them. New Mexico allows illegal aliens to get Drivers licenses. "

(Why don't we just seal the damned borders with electrified fences and minefields? If Ariel Sharon can fence in the Palestinians in
in palestine, why can't be be allowed we fence in our country? Next the government should find the Spics here and bring them home:
either on a bus in they go along willingly or in a box if they resist.
We wouldn't have to keep track of the Beanors or worry about them being uninsured motorists if they were back in the turd-world where their slime belongs!)

Iraqi war continues out of control

7/17/05 - Aljazerra

Deadly violence across Iraq continues, leaving more than 100
people dead and nearly 300 wounded in bombings since 7/14.

Attacks in Baghdad on Sunday morning claimed the lives of 10 people, including five members of the Iraqi security forces, after
police convoys were bombed, an Interior Ministry official said.

The attacks follow Saturday's devastating bombing at the southern town of al-Musayyib, when a man detonated himself near a tanker of liquefied gas, killing at least 70 people and wounding 95, according to hospital sources.

The explosion also set the central square, cars and shops ablaze.

The first attack on Sunday killed two policemen and one civilian
in the eastern New Baghdad neighborhood, police 1st Lieutenant Muhammad Jasim said. Seven policemen and one civilian were also wounded, some seriously.

About an hour later a second car bomb exploded near a police convoy near the Bayaa bus station in southern Baghdad, killing three police commandos and four civilians, police Captain Talib Thamir said. Three civilians were also injured in that blast.

"I was 100 meters away when I saw the fireball. It was enormous... People were burning in their cars. We had to get them out with hooks," said Khodr Abbas.

"I saw women in the burning houses crying for help and we couldn't do a thing," he said.

One of those injured, Ammar al-Karaguili, 40, said he saw disparate parents throwing their children out of windows and from balconies to escape the inferno.

In other violence, a US soldier was killed and two more wounded by an improvised explosive device in the northern Kirkuk province of Iraq, the US military said.

This brought to 1757 the number of US military personnel killed in
Iraq since the March 2003 invasion: according to a tally based on
the slanted Pentagon figures.

KKK Leader: 1979 Shootings Were Self Defense

7/17/05 - Fox Jews

A former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan took the stand at a public hearing Saturday and said those who fired on people at a "Death to the Klan" march more than 25 years ago did so in self-defense.

Five people were killed at the Nov. 3, 1979 rally.

"To tell the truth, if you look at the evidence and see what happened,
it was all self-defense," said Gorrell Pierce. "Everybody was participating in a riot."

Pierce, a former Grand Dragon of the Federated Knights of the KKK, spoke at public hearing held by the Greensboro "Truth and Reconciliation Commission".

The "commission" is investigating the deaths at the march organized by the Communist Workers Party that ended when members of the Klan and the American Nazi Party opened fire.

Leaders in Greensboro, a city of 223,000 in central North Carolina, fear the hearings will rekindle old animosities, but organizers hope to uncover what they feel is the untold story behind the shootings and promote healing.

Pierce said fighting between marchers and Klan members ended in shooting because Communists tried to pull a 79-year-old Klansman out of his car and younger Klansmen came to his aid.

He said he had ordered members of his Klan faction not to attend the march. "I regretted it the day it happened," said Pierce.

Several Klansmen were acquitted of murder charges at a state trial. In 1984, federal prosecutors failed to win a conviction against Virgil Griffin, a Klan member from suburban Charlotte who was acquitted of conspiracy to interfere with a federal investigation. Griffin was scheduled to testify later Saturday.

The shootings followed a clash earlier that year between Communists and Klansmen when the Klan showed the film "Birth of a Nation" in nearby China Grove, Pierce said. At the movie, anti-Klan demonstrators confronted them so closely "you could feel each
other's breath," he said.

11 Soldiers Charged in US torture Incidents

7/16/05 - Associated Press

BlogTerrorist said...

One World/Archangel
If you find this human world quite empty, as many do, and see it as the death march that it is, as many do, then whatever part of you has not given up wants to fix these problems, and make something better. This is a natural response to error, but by the nature of time, you recognize quickly that you cannot look toward the problems of today, but that you must look toward creating something for tomorrow which lacks these problems. You must think not in terms of correcting, but redesigning, the world we have now.

Think of it in biological terms. A healthy body does not succumb to disease; it is only when weakened, or old, that it is carried off. Similarly, no society succumbs entirely to outside assault, even by whichever group of parasites seems most likely to do it this week (Masons, Jews, Scientologists, Democrats, Negroes). Our society had to first weaken itself from within before the seeds of collapse could be sowed; for this reason, it is clear that design errors exist. Other observable correlations support this idea.

What this means is that when we speak of change, we cannot speak of fixes to the existing order, but designing a new order; however, our pragmatic minds remind us that this can be done be re-arranging the parts which compose this whole, and orienting them around healthier ideas than those which created the failing design of our present society. We work toward a new order. No single fix or idea can represent this new order. It must represent itself as all things which are not illusion do: by being a body of values which address reality, and find a sensible way of adapting and harmonizing to it, in dramatic contrast to our collapsing civilization built on illusion.

World collapse has been visible for some centuries now, but only to those with the foresight to predict the paths people will take in the grips of its concepts. It is not the concept itself that can be analyzed, in the present tense, but its effects in the coming iterations of its idea, because ideas grow as villages become cities, with each new generation adding its own layer of interpretation and creation to a core concept. To most people, until now, these concepts have been things on paper or in speeches, but now we are seeing not only how they have developed, but what effects they have brought.

In the West, the native ethnic populations of Indo-Europeans are breeding themselves into dysfunction. Those who embrace a world of ten-hour workdays, credit cards and trying not to offend others are well-adapted to a modern society, and breed, but by their nature, these people are not leaders; they are not creators; they are not able to think on the level of the whole. Rather, they succeed because they think only in terms of what is immediately before them, and thus are blithely unconcerned with the apocalyptic nature of the course upon which the West has embarked. It is not that they do not care. They are unable to see what lies ahead, and thus cannot care.

The intelligent are driven mad by this situation, as are those who would make good leaders, and so they tend to suicide or become so socially unacceptable that they do not breed and thus, as part of our society, die out; there are fewer geniuses than, but more "brilliant" people who can do one task well without a thought for its holistic consequences, than ever before. Years of this has weakened our values, and replaced our cultures with television, popular music, movies and the kind of sage wisdom that is necessary to turn off one's mind and focus on making money. After many generations, this consequence has become obvious.

Finally, our industries begin to collapse, having for years made money off of an expanding population of capable people; through several bad breeding practices, these have been replaced with the less competent, and thus the free growth has ended. All the new jobs are for drones, and the opportunities that were once abundant are now concentrated into corporate monopolies that value allegiance more than ability. We have finally taken up the open land, killed off the free-ranging game, and polluted our seas and air to such a degree that we are prisoners in our own technological world. We require its filtered air and water, but even that can't keep out climate change and a lack of natural beauty.

Even worse, our lives are without meaning. There is no community consequence as to what is "good" except obedience to social regulation itself, and therefore there is no way to create something great and have it be praised, since no one recognizes it. There is only serving in schools, jobs, churches, government. As our lives lack any meaning other than comfort and wealth, we have nearly nothing to talk about. There are no heroic goals, except perhaps the creation of an order to replace this antiheroic one. Since we must keep up this happy illusion while denying our deepest-laid problems, we even censor our own thoughts, more effectively than a totalitarian government could.

There is a lack of hope, as well. Most people are drones, so if we develop something exceptional in ourselves, they will at least fail to recognize it, but more likely will detest us for it. Finding people with whom a thinking being could fall in love has become a Holy Grail, one for which most people substitute a compromise, and content themselves with manipulating this person until the inevitable divorce or murder. Changing the system, even for small fixes, requires getting a vast crowd of voters to agree, and that never happens, in the case of complex issues. Depression is so prevalent it has become sublimated, and we cover our vehicles and office cubicles with inspirational slogans.

Such is the face of our reality at this time. When we recognize these factors as a collection, it becomes apparent that our error is fundamental and far-reaching; it is deep within. We are lost. The only glimmer of spirit lies in taking that first precarious step and recognizing this problem, then resolving ourselves to do something about it. In this, we become more cheerful, as there is a thought that it will not always be this way. We even consider the problems that were once invisible to someday be commonplace recognitions of the failure of this time, so that in the future someone might say, "Back then, everyone was depressed because there was no meaning, nothing left to conquer, and we were all tied to one another by a need for self-validation through wealth."

If this writer could convey one thing to you, the reader, it would be to grasp this hope and never let go. Hope should not be passive; when this is called a hope, it is meant as a hope-through-action, or in other terms, a goal. Focus on the future and on what beauty it will bring. Concentrate on how this would be brought about. You feel better already -- ? This alone turns you away from the resignation and boredom of the present time. But here you must be careful.

The tendency in exhausted people is to look for a quick fix, or a single change that will somehow liberate this world. Some find egalitarianism; others find racialism; others find environmentalism, and still others, any number of even more granular issues that can be easily changed, but will offer no change to the whole. Something both more comprehensive, and less dramatic is needed: this new order will be based, as said, upon reality, in contrast to our time based on unreality. For this reason, it is as threatened by the unreality of a single-topic approach in change as it is by the unreality of a stagnant present.

(Words of an Archangel: What we can do now is to establish a comprehensive system of belief, and to work for our own power. Cheer your adversaries, as they make you stronger. Relish victory, but also struggle, and the affirmation of larger dreams. What kind of assertive person would be content with only a career? Higher, bigger, better, more powerful! You can have it all: sustenance, a family, success and a future society that is not so broken. Leave behind your depression and the world opens before you.

It is an eternal truth eternally forgotten that life is basically good, and nothing is yet lost; we are on the downward swing of many centuries of error, but it is better to reign in Hell, than to content oneself with Heaven - a fractured, wrecked, poisoned, and sickening vision that is obviously a fraud to the thinker, but a paradise to the whore and idiot. The signs of ruin are written on the wall; the prophet weeps blood and ocean water; the howls from the forest penetrate even the most solid skyscraper. We are the future. We are victory. If we can concentrate our thoughts, find solutions and then begin applying them, we will build a better system.

There are no Utopias. One would not want them! Nor is there freedom from war, from suffering, from death and from struggle - similarly, we would not want them! What we wish is a chance for greatness, not in the sense of being on Heaven's television network, but in our own hearts and minds, doing what we know to be real, and in sacrifice. Our lives originated in nature, and to natural death we go. All that can give us enjoyment is found in doing what is not "right" in a moral sense, but what is "right" in a natural sense - continuing growth, heroic acts, endless forests, untouched wilderness. This is what our spirits claim!

For now, there is depression enough to cheer a Priest, but to be assertive is to cast off this final slavery, and to attack the world's challenge with all of your might! Poets, write! Musicians, create! You cannot both settle for something mediocre and have enjoyment of life. You must stretch beyond what you know to be yourself, you must exceed what you expect, casting aside the doubt that reigns happily over a humble, resigned and mentally helpless population. We each are the transcendence of that, and a victory for nature in doing so. Cast out from a Heaven of ill creation, we recognize its error, and we cannot - will not - go back; ours is the way of the lonely path.

While some look to the Absolute for a sign, and for approval of their deeds, the independent spirit knows the individual is transitory, as is the universal. There is no determination of life except life itself. All else is error and illusion. Thinking machines like humans become trapped in our own heads, and from this error arises, so we abandon heroism. The opposite is what we should do: we must embrace the world in all of its ugly and beautiful detail. All that we create is ours. Illusion is dying and the world is renewed for us to conquer. Destruction is creation.)

We must convert all of our present ideas, and all of our desires for the coming years, into a single hopeful vision of future. That which exists now can be organized so that its destructive elements are deprecated, and its other elements re-arranged around realistic, idealistic concepts. Those things which hit our personal fear and anger buttons, whether of a political or social nature, must come second to the task of designing a sensible order for the whole. There is one world, and we all live in it; we can create only one order for ourselves, and by doing so, remove our negative influence on this world. The rehabilitation of the West depends on this type of change, and from this renewal can come future creation without the errors that now restrict us.

This alone can be our mantra. There is one reality, and one world - one chance for us to get it right. All that adapts to this world, and recognizes it, and works with what we have is good; all else is error. That which deals in illusion, or singular focus toward unrealistic "idealism" that promises great things but makes us empty inside, is an artifact of the present time and not a direction toward the future. Action is needed, yet it cannot take the same form as our past. Although this seems like more work to accept, it is liberation from the illusion that fogs our brains, and represents a future by which we can as one be healthy again.

12373.9425494381

BlogTerrorist said...

Ya, sure, I did it and it felt good, wasting a bunch of niggers in school. I also did plenty of nigger-loving race-traitors. The killing seemed so unreal: Wounded black bodies twisted in pain howling in screams for mercy, I soon put them out of their misery.

I Stanford Malicor was born May 16, 1984 in a town of about 30,000 located in Mississippi. I have no brothers or sisters. My mom, Janice, works as a local restaurant as a bartender. She works hard but can be exceptional bitchy at times. My Dad has been a deputy sheriff for about 14 years. He is a good dad and treats me well, when he isn't getting drunk and knocking around mom and me.

Dad was bad but his abuse didn't cause me to dismiss all the niggers in class. My school life had been crap for years: While in the sixth grade, some crypt gang-bangers started to spread rumors that I enjoyed taking dick up the butt. I guess they thought they would get popular by harassing the alleged "school fag."

I got in a fight with a couple of the rumor spreading niggers but the stories grew worse. My next five years of school was filled with nearly constant mental abuse and the daily ritual of beatings from the chimpmen gangs. I sure the hell didn't want to pack some butt, but the facts didn't matter to the niggers.

Sometimes I prayed for death.

As a cop, dad loved to collect all types of cool weapons. He took me shooting many times; I learned to respect the power of a gun. Dad kept all the stuff in two gun safes in our basement.

It was so cool, my dad had all that good cop stuff: handguns, assault-rifles, shotguns, teargas canisters, etc... Dad's friends on the force had nicknamed him "Officer Rambo". The weapons were always kept locked up and only dad had the key. It was no big deal that we owned guns: we lived in a area where everyone enjoyed firearms.

Few knew that my dad was also a high ranking member in the Almira Knights of The KKK. Dad had no love for niggers but he had to act like it and he played the part very well, when he wasn't beating up niggers for resisting arrest.

I never before considered killing anything or anyone until we got a DBS TV system at home and I started watching CNN. TV news showed me the quickest way to fame: pull the trigger on some subhuman students that deserved to die. Waste yourself a bunch of scumbags and you are instantly a TV celebrity. As time passed I continued to intensely study the reports of school shootings. looking for the best plan: the most kills with the least risk.

The abuse at school was becoming intolerable, the niggers refined torture into a fine art. I sentenced the black bastards to death and started making plans to kill them all.

I still needed a whole lot of guns to accomplish the goal but dad kept the firearms locked up all the time. It took some careful planning, but I did score; I switched dad's gun safe key with a look alike key Sunday morning as he was passed out from the usual vodka binge.

Later that evening, I hid the guns in a ravine next to the school.

Monday was like any other day except that some stoned sambo kicked me in the balls, it didn't hurt much, guess I was getting used to it.

Before 5th period was over I ran from my last class with my teacher screaming "Where are you going?" Quickly I sprinted to my guns stash and began arming. I recovered my dad's M-16 assault-rifle and snapped in a full 120 round drum magazine. I also put on a load bearing vest stuffed with three thirty round magazines and a loaded handgun.

Finally, I put on a backpack containing three recently assembled pipe bombs, wrapped in nails and coated in poison. Nice and deadly surprises for any unlucky soul that got between me and my targets.

I had a copy of the terrorists handbook printed out from the internet. Thanks to the Almira Public Library's free internet computers for the public, I know how to build the most lethal of destructive devices.

Running at full speed while loaded down with gear was quite difficult. I was very careful not to be seen until it was too late for the coons. The plan was to attack just right after school, when all the niggers were getting out of class. The moment of vengeance was at hand!

As the bell ringed the monkeys came out. I ran from my hiding place, holding the M-16 at hip level, and positioned myself in front of the sub-human trash. It was time to send these niggers back to hell from where they came. I held down the trigger and sprayed full-auto hollow-point bullets into the black mass.

I can remember the overwhelming rush of pleasure as the first africans were ripped apart. It felt like I was in A theatre watching, in slow motion, a movie of myself making many bodies.

It was grand: all the niggers in front of me screamed and dropped like flies. Those who could, ran back into school with a horrified look of terror on their faces. I stopped shooting, just for a second, because I just had to laugh. All the pain and misery these inferiors had caused me and I was returning it back to them! I squeezed the trigger again and finished off the few nigs who were still alive. Blood from the dead sambos begin flowing into a storm drain as I emptied the drum magazine.

I then reloaded with a 30round banana clip, it was time to move my killing party elsewhere. Leaving the screaming wounded, and the silent dead, I proceeded into the school to shoot any black bastards I could find. For the first time in my life I was truly alive!

The teachers were hiding inside various classrooms like scared rats but it made little difference. My constant assault-rifle fire found human targets.

Black or white didn't matter. These teaching fools had for years poisoned the minds white kids with their diversity race-mixing bullshit. Time for the white race-traitors to die also.

What a pleasure it was killing these people! In the past the faculty had ignored the abuse. Afraid of being labeled "racist" the teachers usually let the niggers run free, like the animals they are, and the whites were the victims.

The air then filled with the sounds of sirens as the cop cars got closer. It was time to move. I proceeded to quench the nearly white hot M-16 machinegun barrel in the vagina of my wounded black English teacher. That sure was more fun than diagramming sentences.

Discarding the M-16, I grabbed my pipe bombs and handgun to waste the pigs.

I waited in ambush behind a blood drenched shrub as three coppers pulled up in their shiny cars. The first car exploded in a ball of fire as an accurately tossed a pipe bomb landed underneath the car, igniting the gas tank. The concussion from the blast knocked me to the ground.

I next shot a nigger piggy in the head with my dad's backup service revolver, while the apeman lay wounded from the pipe bomb blast. However the third piggy was stubborn coonboy and he took my last two pipe bombs to finish off.

It was time to cruise, I ran to my stashed motorcycle and got the hell out of there. While driving off I could still hear the shattered screams of dieing niggers twisting in the grass.

All together it was a great day of racial purifications!

That was the most fun I ever had and hope that other White Power kids get even. Their is no better feeling in the world than spraying lead into a nigger or race-traitor who deserves it, it is a far better choice than suicide!24450.3610126519

BlogTerrorist said...

What did one gay sperm say to another?
"How do we find an egg in all of this shit?"

What does GAY really stand for?
Got Aids Yet?

How do you know that you have walked into a homosexual church service?
Only half the congregation are kneeling!

How many faggots does it take to put in a light bulb?
Only one.
but it takes an entire emergency room to remove it!

What is the first symptom of AIDS?
An extreme pain in the ass!

What's the definition of tender love?
Two faggots with hemorrhoids!

Two really sick faggots were visiting the zoo,
when they found themselves at the gorilla cage.
The gorilla was sitting there with a huge erection.
Unable to contain himself the first queer reaches
inside the cage and tries to touch the huge cock.
As soon as arm goes into the cage the gorilla grabs him,
takes him into the cage, slams him on the floor and fucks him senseless.
A few days later in hospital the fag's boyfriend visits him and said, "Does it hurt?"
"Hurt? Hurt?" cried out the raped faggot, "Of course it hurts.
He hasn't phoned and he hasn't written�!"

How do you get four faggots to share one bar stool?
Turn it upside down and hand them a bucket of grease!

What do call a queer who doesn't have AIDS?
A lucky cocksucker!

How do faggots spell relief?
N-O-A-I-D-S!

What is a shit?
A faggots wet dream!

What does AIDS stand for?
Asshole Injected Death Sentence!

How can you tell if a household is homosexual?
The welcome mat reads 'Please wipe Your Knees!'

What do you call two faggots on a waterbed?
A fruit float!

Why are faggots always the first out of burning buildings?
Because they already have their shit packed!

Why can't scientist's discover a cure for AIDS?
Because they can't get the laboratory mice to fuck each other up the ass!

What do you call a fag dentist?
The tooth fairy of course!

Two queers are in a hot tub pushing a big turd back and forth in the water. Another fag walked in and asked, "What the hell are you two doing?"
"We are teaching our baby how to swim!"

What's a homosexual masochist?
A sucker for punishment!

Two faggots were on a sunny beach. The first one said, "Shall I put the umbrella up?" "Yes," replied the second homo, "But don't open it, I'm a bit sore!"

What do you call a fag bar with no stools?
A fruit stand!

If three faggots are in bed together what do you call the one in the middle?
A double adapter!

What do you call the foreskin on a faggot?
Mudflaps!

How can you tell if a bank robber is a faggot?
He ties up the safe and blows the Security Guard!

What happened when three faggots attacked a woman?
Two of them held her down and the other did her hair!

Did you hear about the two fags who had an argument in a gay bar?
They went outside and exchanged blows!

Why did the faggot think his boyfriend was cheating on him?
Because he kept coming home shitfaced!

What's the worst thing a straight guy can say in a gay bar?
Can you push my stool in please?!

Why was the queer sacked from his job in the sperm bank?
He was caught drinking on the job!

What do you give a queer with AIDS for Christmas?
Cancer!

Two sick fags were taking a shower with each other.
The phone rings and Lance says to Rod,
"I will be right back darling, so don't start without me!"
After a minute or so Lance comes back,
and sees cum splattered all over the shower wall.
"I thought I told you not to start without me!"
replied Rod, "I didn't start without you, I just farted!"

What's the greatest thing about AIDS?
It can turn a fruit into a vegetable!

What do you call a fag milkman?
A dairy queen!

An obviously gay guy swished onto a bus to face a derogatory sneer from the massive bus driver.
"Faggot! growled the driver, "Where's your pearls?"
"Pearls with corduroy?" shrieked the gay, "Are you mad!"

What do fags call hemorrhoids?
Speed bumps!

How do you know you're at a gay BBQ?
The hotdogs taste like shit!51867.9197647488

BlogTerrorist said...

How to Become Your Parents

We all know what it is that makes our parents so distinctive: adults are more beaten down than children because they've seen more frustration and hence, written off more avenues of approach in life. We're all familiar with the sayings they have. Don't fight it, go with the flow, it's just how things are. Don't resist, give up, go along, in other words. For this reason, most people have a nagging fear of being "conformist" like their parents.

What your parents are, more than anything else, is practical. They've set aside a few things they can control and written off the rest, knowing - if they're smart - intuitively that things such as democracy, free enterprise, etc. are covers for the vast ongoing kleptocracy of modern government. They no longer have time for ideals because in their experience, every ideal gets dragged down into the same old thing. You can avoid this, if you want to, but it requires thinking outside of what is commonly accepted as an ideal.

It used to be (1960s) that the way to become your parents was to be conservative. If your only values were earning money and going to church, by god, you'd be a parent in no time at all. The reason for this is that conservatism was where the sheep hid back then, because it was the safest ideology. Now the sheep have found an even safer ideology, and that's liberalism, in all of its covert forms - including what passes for "conservatism" today.

The core of liberalism is class warfare, or the ongoing desire to lift up those who are impoverished or oppressed so that there can be social equality. Liberal ideologies from Communism to the Democratic Party to Anarchists to what passes for "Greens" all share this basic thrust. Their fundamental idea is that if we make everyone happy, there will be no strife, and if there's no strife, we will not be personally endangered. And that's where liberal thought ends. It doesn't go on to consider what might make a life meaningful, or make living in a society positive. But it's a perfect ideology for getting along with people.

Think about it. If you encounter people working on your house, bums in the street, impoverished oppressed AIDS patients, etc. you can tell them you're on their side. You believe everyone should have what you do, and as a token of that, you'll hand them a small gift and send them on their way. It's a combination of pacifism, or refusing to fight for what must be done because someone might get hurt, and pity, or finding a way to make others seem puny by giving them things and thus affirming the roles of you as powerful giver and them as weaker receiver. For whatever reason, because it refuses to assert that some ideas are worth fighting for over others, and because it refuses to acknowledge that not all people are equal in ability, liberalism is a very popular belief, even when hidden in a conservative skin in the style of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

However, remember the old adage: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberalism, as good intentions, creates disorder out of society by, instead of putting effort into the growing areas of society, e.g. its excellent people, putting energy into those who are going nowhere and removing any external pressure for them to rise up out of a state of failure. Since liberalism is one of those beliefs composed of moral/ideological projections instead of adaptations to reality, it also puts everyone in spacy cloud-nine fantasyland, where they dream on about how good they are and how the poor are being helped while what they should be focusing on - society as a whole - goes into the toilet. But no one ever got fired for adopting a liberal idea, because if you don't stamp it with allegiance to a certain party (red star), the basic concepts are socially inoffensive. "Sure, I accept every person as my brother or sister."

Liberalism is in fact no different from the conservative Christianity which was the bedrock of conservatism in the 1950s. We fight the Soviets because they don't have "freedom," so what we're doing is morally right. Now we fight "racists" for the same reason, not thinking that perhaps there is no end to this war. But let me share with you a little secret: whether we call it Christianity, or liberalism, or pluralism, or humanism, the simplest way to become a beaten down and submissive droid like your parents is to adopt this viewpoint. The secret is that out of all the beliefs you can potentially adopt, almost all are derived from liberalism, and therefore, basically the same.

Be a hippie or a Republican, an anarchist or a Green, a Libertarian or a Communist. It doesn't matter. You're still upholding the same basic broken belief system that originates in the Jewish idea that morality should preserve the individual at all costs, and avoid personal sacrifice; this is in dramatic contrast to the Indo-Aryan ideal that ideals should be upheld at all costs, as they are the basis of structure in our lives. No matter how much you rebel, with Che Guevara posters on your walls and emo in the CD player, you're still acting through the same tired drama that has torn down every civilization, which is a progressive distancing from reality and regression into the individual.

This type of thinking makes it easy to be beaten down. You can't have any strong opinions, because that would offend someone, and therefore be not only un-liberal but bad for business. You can't desire any change outside that mythological beast known as your "personal life," because that might conflict with someone else's desires - no matter how insane - and thus cause offense and loss of business. Finally, you can't ever suggest that the way we do things - liberalism - is in error, because it's clearly a "good" thing and also a socially-accepted one. Keep these ideas in your head, and soon it won't be worth fighting and you'll give in to the flow. You will have become your parents. 32981.4824073528

BlogTerrorist said...

The Paradox of Individuality:


The roots of modernity stem from the importance placed in the individual above all else. Modern society places emphasis on society as a collection of individuals, rather than on society as a unit of smaller pieces reaching for a goal much as an organism is created out of organs working towards a single goal- sustaining the existence of the whole. Because of this focus on the pieces, fragmented and separated from the whole, consensus can never be achieved, except to the lowest possible values- comfort mainly, as seemingly all other popular values, whether in a physical sense as drives most consumerism, or in a mental sense, as in entertainment and illusions of personal importance, which act to cause the one enjoying them to cease thinking about issues of mortality or accomplishment (or, more specifically, lack thereof).



In order for this happy impotence to continue existing, it requires that every individual be given not only the mental comfort outlined above, but none to excel in any meaningful way, for that would be implying that not everybody is equal, and would shatter the blissful numbness. Echoes of "Brave New World" and "Paradise Lost" should be ringing loudly in the reader's head right now; in guaranteeing comfort and a comfortable self-esteem for all, it stifles all potential towards anything other than mediocrity.



The reason that this goes unnoticed by most people is because of the adornments to one's affectation that this system allows. Every person can choose to put on a different superficial role, their own dysfunction, while acting like everyone else. They can choose to buy the Britney Spears CDs because of their complete faith in blind hedonism to lead them through any situation, or they can buy their favorite album from Linkin Park to demonstrate their unfocused anger. At their root, though, they're engaging in the same action- purchasing a plastic product to demonstrate their "uniqueness" for playing this role, which will be forgotten and thrown away within a few months (popular music aims at expressing nothing other than base, meaningless sentiments, and thus is wholly disposable and similar).



Most people, being unable to create great works or take action towards a cause in any form, love this form of individuality because it allows them to think that they're an individual without having to exert any sort of effort to distance themselves from the norm; it allows them to be equally important to the person who writes great symphonies, or is the greatest warrior, despite their complete lack of distinction. Thus, they create mobs which operate wholly to provide a place for the individual's sense of ego, and harshly attack all that pose some threat to their sense of self importance; which happens to be basically anyone who has some distinction in their merit, rather than the role that they play and call a "personality". Thus, the paradox of individuality is revealed; through holding up the concept of the individual above all else, it forces everyone to be the same, undistinguished person.
80.067895688386

BlogTerrorist said...

15661.6654582317

BlogTerrorist said...

What did one gay sperm say to another?
"How do we find an egg in all of this shit?"

What does GAY really stand for?
Got Aids Yet?

How do you know that you have walked into a homosexual church service?
Only half the congregation are kneeling!

How many faggots does it take to put in a light bulb?
Only one.
but it takes an entire emergency room to remove it!

What is the first symptom of AIDS?
An extreme pain in the ass!

What's the definition of tender love?
Two faggots with hemorrhoids!

Two really sick faggots were visiting the zoo,
when they found themselves at the gorilla cage.
The gorilla was sitting there with a huge erection.
Unable to contain himself the first queer reaches
inside the cage and tries to touch the huge cock.
As soon as arm goes into the cage the gorilla grabs him,
takes him into the cage, slams him on the floor and fucks him senseless.
A few days later in hospital the fag's boyfriend visits him and said, "Does it hurt?"
"Hurt? Hurt?" cried out the raped faggot, "Of course it hurts.
He hasn't phoned and he hasn't written�!"

How do you get four faggots to share one bar stool?
Turn it upside down and hand them a bucket of grease!

What do call a queer who doesn't have AIDS?
A lucky cocksucker!

How do faggots spell relief?
N-O-A-I-D-S!

What is a shit?
A faggots wet dream!

What does AIDS stand for?
Asshole Injected Death Sentence!

How can you tell if a household is homosexual?
The welcome mat reads 'Please wipe Your Knees!'

What do you call two faggots on a waterbed?
A fruit float!

Why are faggots always the first out of burning buildings?
Because they already have their shit packed!

Why can't scientist's discover a cure for AIDS?
Because they can't get the laboratory mice to fuck each other up the ass!

What do you call a fag dentist?
The tooth fairy of course!

Two queers are in a hot tub pushing a big turd back and forth in the water. Another fag walked in and asked, "What the hell are you two doing?"
"We are teaching our baby how to swim!"

What's a homosexual masochist?
A sucker for punishment!

Two faggots were on a sunny beach. The first one said, "Shall I put the umbrella up?" "Yes," replied the second homo, "But don't open it, I'm a bit sore!"

What do you call a fag bar with no stools?
A fruit stand!

If three faggots are in bed together what do you call the one in the middle?
A double adapter!

What do you call the foreskin on a faggot?
Mudflaps!

How can you tell if a bank robber is a faggot?
He ties up the safe and blows the Security Guard!

What happened when three faggots attacked a woman?
Two of them held her down and the other did her hair!

Did you hear about the two fags who had an argument in a gay bar?
They went outside and exchanged blows!

Why did the faggot think his boyfriend was cheating on him?
Because he kept coming home shitfaced!

What's the worst thing a straight guy can say in a gay bar?
Can you push my stool in please?!

Why was the queer sacked from his job in the sperm bank?
He was caught drinking on the job!

What do you give a queer with AIDS for Christmas?
Cancer!

Two sick fags were taking a shower with each other.
The phone rings and Lance says to Rod,
"I will be right back darling, so don't start without me!"
After a minute or so Lance comes back,
and sees cum splattered all over the shower wall.
"I thought I told you not to start without me!"
replied Rod, "I didn't start without you, I just farted!"

What's the greatest thing about AIDS?
It can turn a fruit into a vegetable!

What do you call a fag milkman?
A dairy queen!

An obviously gay guy swished onto a bus to face a derogatory sneer from the massive bus driver.
"Faggot! growled the driver, "Where's your pearls?"
"Pearls with corduroy?" shrieked the gay, "Are you mad!"

What do fags call hemorrhoids?
Speed bumps!

How do you know you're at a gay BBQ?
The hotdogs taste like shit!4139.5920225902

BlogTerrorist said...

School District to recognize "Ebonics" as a foreign language

7/21/05 - UPI

It used to be called Jive.

A series of slang words grouped together in primitive ways that is spoken by the lowest of evolved humanoids.

Then one alleged educator renamed jive 'ebonics' to somehow
grant respectability to this nigger noise.

Now A school district in Southern California has approved the affirmation and recognition of Ebonics into its curriculum in an
attempt to help the less evolved students improve academic performance.

The San Bernardino Board of Education says a pilot of the policy, known as the Students Accumulating New Knowledge Optimizing Future Accomplishment Initiative, has been implemented at
two city schools.

'Ebonics' or nig-bonics, was recognized as a separate language by the nigger fools at the Oakland, California school board in 1996.

Although the program is aimed at coon students, other students can choose to participate.

Ratibu Jacocks, a member of a coalition of black 'activists' - the Westside Action Group - said they are working with the district to ensure the policy is implemented appropriately.

He welcomes the idea of other ethnic groups lobbying for their own program. "When you are doing what's right, others will follow,' Jacocks said. "We have led the way before the civil-rights movement opened the door for women's rights and other movements."

(How about A White Civil Rights Movement? Why not A special program for German children to embrace their culture?
Is it racist for whites to have special programs but not for Blacks?)

The Minuteman(militiaman) project

7/20/05 - AP

(Communists and other leftist scum claim that the Minutemen
are racist even though they will let anyone participate regardless
of race. Extremist's use this ploy regularly to demonize whatever
they don't like. These guys are about as racist as Bush is smart;
and we should know!)

The minuteman Project is an volunteer movement that vows to guard the United States from the wave of brownskin Spic Scum. Some of the minutemen are nonwhite like Carl Whitaker who runs the Tennessee Volunteer Minutemen. Carl is an subhuman injun who
works to expose those who employ illegal aliens.

At least 40 groups opposing illegal immigration have popped up nationally, inspired by the Minuteman Project that rallied hundreds
this year to patrol the Mexican border in Arizona.

President Boy George has called the movement vigilantism.

The Minuteman Project itself has generated chapters in 18 states, from California to Utah, Minnesota and Maine. The Tennessee group and others like it have no direct affiliation but share a common goal.

At the Department of Homeland Security, whose authority includes patrolling borders and enforcing immigration laws, response to Minuteman-type activism is reserved.

"Homeland security is a shared responsibility, and the department believes the American public plays a critical role in helping to defend the homeland," agency spokesman Jarrod Agen said from Washington. "But as far doing an investigation or anything beyond giving us a heads-up, that should be handled by trained law enforcement."

Non whites and commies attack the Minutemen

7/20/05 - Newswire

Jim Gilchrist the founder of The Minuteman Project experienced the worst of America. He witnessed the literal siege of VFW Post #2080 by about 60 belligerent, death-threatening mud animals twice July 16th. The Caucasian-hating members of the subhuman organization known as the Mexican brown berets, stormed the VFW Lodge, damaging signs and other property. They were eventually repelled
by the late-arriving San Diego County Sheriff's Dept.

No arrests were made.

The rampage was orchestrated by Armando Navarro, a known Spic commie, who holds a comfortable, taxpayer funded, tenured position as a professor at the University of California - Riverside, Ca., and who has devoted his life to promoting the Spic conquest of the seven southwestern US states. He calls for the conquest to be carried
out by gunpoint, if necessary.

One California Minuteman volunteer, Jim Woods, was physically assaulted by a gang of ten of Navarro's thugs as he sat in his car alone at a border outpost. He was physically restrained in his car seat by the brown berets, who threatened to kill him. They stole his keys from the ignition and left him stranded without food or water for several hours. When Jim Woods identified two of the gang members to the Sheriff's Dept. and asked for an arrest, no action was taken by the Sheriff's deputies. One deputy just responded to Mr. Wood's plea for help with "Oh, you just lost your keys," despite repeated pleas to the contrary from Mr. Woods.

Forced crackdown on Illegals incite governors to issue threat

7/19/05 - Associate Press

Fees for a new driver's license have been threatened to triple.
Lines at motor vehicles offices could stretch out the door.

(The sky is falling!)

Governors threatened that states and consumers would get screwed because of the push to turn Drivers licenses into a national ID card.

The new federal law called the REAL ID Act was passed in
June as part of an $82 billion military spending bill.

By 2008, states must begin to verify whether license applicants are American citizens or legal residents of the United States.

Ideally this will prevent states from handing out drivers licenses to any illegal alien that applies. Many states like Oregon hand out drivers licenses without verifying citizenship. Once you have a license
(which is really your government ID card) you then have de facto citizenship.

That deadline brought the first question in a closed-door session between governors and federal officials on homeland security
Monday at the National Governors Association meeting.

The two groups also talked about pressures on National Guard troops, and steps to better integrate state and local law enforcement with federal efforts to prevent terrorist attacks, governors said as they wrapped up their summer meeting.

After meeting privately with governors, Homeland Security Jewboy
Michael Chertoff said the new law could create opportunities to protect people against identity theft. He also offered assurances that his agency would work cooperatively with states. "What we want is to find a common plan that works for everybody, but we'll also take into account the natural differences states have," Chertoff said.

Democrat Bill Richardson of New Mexico said "denying illegal immigrants a driver's license just makes it harder for government
and law enforcement to keep track of them. New Mexico allows illegal aliens to get Drivers licenses. "

(Why don't we just seal the damned borders with electrified fences and minefields? If Ariel Sharon can fence in the Palestinians in
in palestine, why can't be be allowed we fence in our country? Next the government should find the Spics here and bring them home:
either on a bus in they go along willingly or in a box if they resist.
We wouldn't have to keep track of the Beanors or worry about them being uninsured motorists if they were back in the turd-world where their slime belongs!)

Iraqi war continues out of control

7/17/05 - Aljazerra

Deadly violence across Iraq continues, leaving more than 100
people dead and nearly 300 wounded in bombings since 7/14.

Attacks in Baghdad on Sunday morning claimed the lives of 10 people, including five members of the Iraqi security forces, after
police convoys were bombed, an Interior Ministry official said.

The attacks follow Saturday's devastating bombing at the southern town of al-Musayyib, when a man detonated himself near a tanker of liquefied gas, killing at least 70 people and wounding 95, according to hospital sources.

The explosion also set the central square, cars and shops ablaze.

The first attack on Sunday killed two policemen and one civilian
in the eastern New Baghdad neighborhood, police 1st Lieutenant Muhammad Jasim said. Seven policemen and one civilian were also wounded, some seriously.

About an hour later a second car bomb exploded near a police convoy near the Bayaa bus station in southern Baghdad, killing three police commandos and four civilians, police Captain Talib Thamir said. Three civilians were also injured in that blast.

"I was 100 meters away when I saw the fireball. It was enormous... People were burning in their cars. We had to get them out with hooks," said Khodr Abbas.

"I saw women in the burning houses crying for help and we couldn't do a thing," he said.

One of those injured, Ammar al-Karaguili, 40, said he saw disparate parents throwing their children out of windows and from balconies to escape the inferno.

In other violence, a US soldier was killed and two more wounded by an improvised explosive device in the northern Kirkuk province of Iraq, the US military said.

This brought to 1757 the number of US military personnel killed in
Iraq since the March 2003 invasion: according to a tally based on
the slanted Pentagon figures.

KKK Leader: 1979 Shootings Were Self Defense

7/17/05 - Fox Jews

A former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan took the stand at a public hearing Saturday and said those who fired on people at a "Death to the Klan" march more than 25 years ago did so in self-defense.

Five people were killed at the Nov. 3, 1979 rally.

"To tell the truth, if you look at the evidence and see what happened,
it was all self-defense," said Gorrell Pierce. "Everybody was participating in a riot."

Pierce, a former Grand Dragon of the Federated Knights of the KKK, spoke at public hearing held by the Greensboro "Truth and Reconciliation Commission".

The "commission" is investigating the deaths at the march organized by the Communist Workers Party that ended when members of the Klan and the American Nazi Party opened fire.

Leaders in Greensboro, a city of 223,000 in central North Carolina, fear the hearings will rekindle old animosities, but organizers hope to uncover what they feel is the untold story behind the shootings and promote healing.

Pierce said fighting between marchers and Klan members ended in shooting because Communists tried to pull a 79-year-old Klansman out of his car and younger Klansmen came to his aid.

He said he had ordered members of his Klan faction not to attend the march. "I regretted it the day it happened," said Pierce.

Several Klansmen were acquitted of murder charges at a state trial. In 1984, federal prosecutors failed to win a conviction against Virgil Griffin, a Klan member from suburban Charlotte who was acquitted of conspiracy to interfere with a federal investigation. Griffin was scheduled to testify later Saturday.

The shootings followed a clash earlier that year between Communists and Klansmen when the Klan showed the film "Birth of a Nation" in nearby China Grove, Pierce said. At the movie, anti-Klan demonstrators confronted them so closely "you could feel each
other's breath," he said.

11 Soldiers Charged in US torture Incidents

7/16/05 - Associated Press

BlogTerrorist said...

Postmorality

If there is one thing humanity needs to hear right now, it is this: "Grow up!" However, this is not the
form of maturity of which is commonly spoken, by which they mean a certain docility and resignation that
allows one to call a job and servitude to social prestige a meaningful life. The usage here refers to the
ultimate maturity, which is an ability to accept reality in all of its positive and negative dimensions,
and resolve to act upon it as is necessary.

We could call this ultimate maturity "realism," because when all the semantic arguments are brushed
aside, and all the ontological concerns shown to be aspects of the same question, we realize that most of
human discourse centers on objects of perception without stopping, first, to form a comprehensive system.
Since there is no explanation for our world as a whole, what replaces logic is an ability to analyze
details intently, without ever discovering the interconnection between data.

This basic failing is akin to us as humans selecting to believe only that which originates in a human
mind, and to relegate reality - the interaction of beings, natural forces, and objects in our physical
real-time world - to second-class status. Whether we pick materialism or dualism, both extremes serve us
badly by taking our attention away from an observation of life and pointing it toward arbitrary
linguistic problems that do not necessarily related to reality.

As such, realism is the king of all scientific outlooks, and herein is its paradox: although we all live
in the same world, not all have the fineness of perceptual analysis to understand realism. Most people
not only "would prefer to" cling to stolid absolutes that require no interpretation or context to be
applied, but also cannot conceive of any other form of belief system. It is only in our recent (400
years) mania for new customers to not offend that we have made the presumption that all people, if "given
the same advantages," can understand the same complex thoughts.

Thus we have a troubling situation, onto which another is rapidly piled: a nearly indefinable belief
based upon a reality in which we all live, but which we perceive to different degrees. Luckily, nature
makes this easy for us, and the best-bred among us are the ones who - owing to greater intelligence,
health and moral character - are able to perceive not only what is, in an immediate sense, but its
function, even over time. These are realists who often move to the next level, which is idealism.

Idealism in the vernacular means something different from philosophical idealism; in philosophical
idealism, one suggests that the world is (a) composed of thought or (b) operates in a similar method to
thought; the two are roughly conflatable, in that if the world operates as thoughts, on the high level of
abstraction at which philosophy works, it might as well be thought. Still, even the most spacy of the
idealists affirm realism as the basis for their idealism. How does this work?

What we call science is the process of deducing structural functions to our world, and then using those
to in turn predict responses to certain events or actions. When we understand how our world works
(realism), we can then turn toward the question of its manipulation (idealism), which is subdivided into
questions of how, which relate directly to our degree of realistic perception, and why, which are more
akin to the goal-setting tendencies of idealism. Realism is perception; idealism is a study of design
both in perception and moral action.

Of course, balancing these two ideas is quite a challenge for almost anyone, and only the smarter ones
among us can do it - but among Indo-Europeans, this is not as small of a population as one might think.
Although the dumbest among us make themselves known as the loudest, there is usually a silent group who
function at a high level of efficiency and care deeply about doing the right thing; these however lack
the impetus to draw attention to themselves, as they already understand a spiritual principle by which
self is secondary to whole. These people understand the secret of nihilism.

Unlike most philosophical systems, which are based on achieving an ideal or asserting a value as higher
than others, nihilism is a discipline. It's a way of training your mind to look at the world, and from
it, as in any fully-developed philosophical system, comes an explanation of the entirety of philosophy as
opened for us by the initial realizations of nihilism. Once again, it's not for everyone; if you don't
get it, you might not be ready, and many among us will never be ready, as they literally lack the
circuitry to understand it. Much as you cannot educate a kitchen blender into a supercomputer, you cannot
make a philosophical genius out of the average mind.

Nihilism seems a paradox. It denies all value, thus obliterating the objective/subjective and mind/body
divisions favored by dualists, yet it upholds the idea of abstract structure ("design") behind our
cosmos, as when one denies value one turns to function, specifically function of the physical world. It
is not, however, materialism, as materialism champions a faith that material comfort and individual
survival are the highest goals that exist; most likely, those who are materialists lack the circuitry to
go further. Nihilism is a form of idealism, in that it posits an order to the universe that can be
understood through logic, but rejects value-judgments as a method of doing this; don't categorize and
classify, suggests nihilism, but describe. Describe structure, not physicality or emotionality.

In this we achieve the beginnings of a fully mature philosophy, something akin to the "pragmatic
idealism" Nietzsche described or the pessimistic Hindu-inspired idealism of Schopenhauer; it is
reminiscent of the beliefs of early Greco-Roman civilizations, where the gods personified natural forces
and were beyond any form of "moral judgment," or classification into good and evil. When the ashes settle
over the last thousand years of Western civilization, it will quickly become clear that moral
classification led us to a kind of linear thought that detached us from a study of systemics, and thus
allowed us to do ludicrously destructive things in the name of details - the individual, an absolute
moral principle, or the need to make some cold hard cash.

One of the best aspects of nihilism and cosmic idealism alike is their rejection of absolute moral
judgments, meaning any type of rule that applies without context and to all people alike. The simplest
example is the hypocrisy over murder in the West; we say murder is wrong, and then murder people for
committing murder. A nihilist avoids the initial error by never saying "murder is wrong," but instead,
electing to murder those who threaten whatever values are held dear. A rapid stratification appears among
human beings at this point, because depending on where we are on the intelligence-moral character scale,
we value different things. Those who are at the higher end of such a scale have valuable opinions, and
the rest... should probably be oppressed.

All philosophical concepts are interrelated, and every philosophical system uses a core concept as an
introduction to all other parts of philosophy; if your system is idealism, for example, you translate all
other philosophical questions into idealist vocabulary, and then analyze them and synthesize responses
from that point. A nihilist system is no different. Nihilism is both radically different from
Christianity, but agrees with it on many points, much as it does with Hinduism and other cosmic idealist
systems. If it has an enemy, it would be the lower-level systems, like materialism and superstition,
which rules out Judaism and Voodoo.

However, any good nihilist does apprehend quickly why in ancient societies the principle of karma/caste
was rapidly attached to a postmoral system: if there is no prohibition against killing, one had better
limit that function to those who know enough to handle it. In the same way we do not give firearms to
three-year-olds, certain privileges must be earned by those who show aptitude and character for them. As
most of the questions of philosophy are complicated enough to take a lifetime, ancient societies tended
to breed people for these roles, thus producing the original definition of aristocracy: the
philosopher-kings and warrior-kings who knew how to wield the power they had.

A modern comparison to this is any form of martial art. The students are taught slowly to take on the
powers of a fully capable fighter, so that alongside raw technique they may absorb years of wisdom - and
be sent away by their teachers if they are psychopaths or otherwise defective. Just as one does not teach
post-911 Arab students to take off in planes but not land them, one does not teach nutcases to kill with
a punch. The caste system is part of this karmic order in that it is recognized that, with each advance
in breeding, the design of the next generation changes; those designs are most likely to function as
their ancestors did. As a result, one creates groups like aristocracies which are bred for the finest
traits and pass them along to their offspring.

This system works surprisingly well. Outside of a few defectives, most people have the abilities of their
parents, if developed by education. Even more importantly, they have the moral inclination and traits of
their parents, and therefore make similar types of decisions. The power of nihilism and postmorality in
ancient societies was kept among those who had for generations proven themselves able to wield it; this
is a more effective system than our modern one, which supposes that "anyone" could be effective with this
kind of power, so we give it to them and hope they don't screw up. Remember that during election year.

What we refer to as postmoralism was designed for elites by breeding, as it is a complex system.
Essentially, traditional "Western" (Judeo-Christian) morality is designed around simple rulesets: evil is
bad, murder is evil, therefore if you murder, you are evil and we should murder you. Postmoral tradition,
as mentioned above, does not waste time banning murder. It asks, simply, was the murder fortunate? which
means: did the murder increase the elegance and graceful function of a natural order? If one has murdered
a child molestor, order is increased and made better; if you murder a child who otherwise would likely
done great things, you are probably a psychopath and should be murdered.

In warfare, for example, murder was viewed as glorious in the idealistic tradition, as those who lost
lives had done so in fulfilment of their place in a natural order, and in doing so, had risen a level in
the karmic cycle by not shirking from what must be done. Even more, victims were sacrifices to the gods
of the nature, and had fulfilled their own role; material fortunes came second to spiritual ones (a
complete reversal of the modern logic). One did not weep for a conquered enemy, but sang for the whole of
nature, as in the growth of better people a more logical order was instituted.

Other examples come to mind. Idealists tended to treat their women better than any other group; they gave
them privileges, had laws against their mistreatment, and tended to murder and mutilate those who
committed rape, incest, and assault in peacetime. In war, it was different; rape of a conquered enemy was
viewed as a chance to increase the breeding potential of that tribe, and was thus a joyful occurrence. If
a warrior with IQ of 140 raped a woman with IQ of 85, the logic went, she received an upgrade (payable in
next generation) of some IQ points, thus all was cool. It's important to note, of course, that idealists
did not engage in world wars for economic and political commodities, thus it's impossible to compare
their actions to those of a modern time.

Another example is money. For those who deserved money as a means of achieving their function, it was
viewed as a natural right and something not to be questioned; for those who did not have such a use, it
was seen as suspect to care too much about it. If you have enough to live and retire, what is the need
for desiring more? - they viewed it in the same way our current society views people who spend their
entire income on pornography and lubricant: obsessive. Money was something granted by the gods for a
purpose, not a purpose in itself, as it is in modernity.

Unfortunately, this system was replaced with a one-size-fits-all system, in which postmoral rules cannot
apply, because they must apply to everyone, equally, in order to be "fair." As one might guess, such a
system was not created by the few highly intelligent ones, but by the masses of unstable and
unspecialized people who inherently fear those who might be more capable than they. The masses won by
numbers, and overwhelmed their leaders and aristocracy, and that brought us the downfall of Greece, of
Rome, and the future downfall of America. It also brought us absolute moral judgment and "good"/"evil."

Now that America has run its course, and it has become clear to even liberals that the system is
collapsing under its own weight and paradox, the idea of a postmoral society is again considered. And, as
all concepts are linked, people are again considering the concept of an aristocracy of our most capable
to wield the kind of unfettered power that such a civilization allows. Creating rigid moral rules, and
then having checks and balances on leaders, hasn't worked; not only has corruption flourished, but we've
been unable to make necessary long-term decisions.

While our system is reassuring to those who fear they are inadequate, it has traded sanity for the
accomodation of those who are defective or underperforming, and not surprisingly, the results have been
terrible. This is why humanity needs to "Grow up!" and realize that we're not all equal, and we need some
qualified leaders fast, before we make ourselves miserable and then in short order, exterminate ourselves
and all that we care about. To take that step, we need to go down the winding path from realism to
idealism through nihilism, and in doing so, to cultivate in ourselves a new maturity.
15338.0343490814

BlogTerrorist said...

How to Become Your Parents

We all know what it is that makes our parents so distinctive: adults are more beaten down than children because they've seen more frustration and hence, written off more avenues of approach in life. We're all familiar with the sayings they have. Don't fight it, go with the flow, it's just how things are. Don't resist, give up, go along, in other words. For this reason, most people have a nagging fear of being "conformist" like their parents.

What your parents are, more than anything else, is practical. They've set aside a few things they can control and written off the rest, knowing - if they're smart - intuitively that things such as democracy, free enterprise, etc. are covers for the vast ongoing kleptocracy of modern government. They no longer have time for ideals because in their experience, every ideal gets dragged down into the same old thing. You can avoid this, if you want to, but it requires thinking outside of what is commonly accepted as an ideal.

It used to be (1960s) that the way to become your parents was to be conservative. If your only values were earning money and going to church, by god, you'd be a parent in no time at all. The reason for this is that conservatism was where the sheep hid back then, because it was the safest ideology. Now the sheep have found an even safer ideology, and that's liberalism, in all of its covert forms - including what passes for "conservatism" today.

The core of liberalism is class warfare, or the ongoing desire to lift up those who are impoverished or oppressed so that there can be social equality. Liberal ideologies from Communism to the Democratic Party to Anarchists to what passes for "Greens" all share this basic thrust. Their fundamental idea is that if we make everyone happy, there will be no strife, and if there's no strife, we will not be personally endangered. And that's where liberal thought ends. It doesn't go on to consider what might make a life meaningful, or make living in a society positive. But it's a perfect ideology for getting along with people.

Think about it. If you encounter people working on your house, bums in the street, impoverished oppressed AIDS patients, etc. you can tell them you're on their side. You believe everyone should have what you do, and as a token of that, you'll hand them a small gift and send them on their way. It's a combination of pacifism, or refusing to fight for what must be done because someone might get hurt, and pity, or finding a way to make others seem puny by giving them things and thus affirming the roles of you as powerful giver and them as weaker receiver. For whatever reason, because it refuses to assert that some ideas are worth fighting for over others, and because it refuses to acknowledge that not all people are equal in ability, liberalism is a very popular belief, even when hidden in a conservative skin in the style of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

However, remember the old adage: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberalism, as good intentions, creates disorder out of society by, instead of putting effort into the growing areas of society, e.g. its excellent people, putting energy into those who are going nowhere and removing any external pressure for them to rise up out of a state of failure. Since liberalism is one of those beliefs composed of moral/ideological projections instead of adaptations to reality, it also puts everyone in spacy cloud-nine fantasyland, where they dream on about how good they are and how the poor are being helped while what they should be focusing on - society as a whole - goes into the toilet. But no one ever got fired for adopting a liberal idea, because if you don't stamp it with allegiance to a certain party (red star), the basic concepts are socially inoffensive. "Sure, I accept every person as my brother or sister."

Liberalism is in fact no different from the conservative Christianity which was the bedrock of conservatism in the 1950s. We fight the Soviets because they don't have "freedom," so what we're doing is morally right. Now we fight "racists" for the same reason, not thinking that perhaps there is no end to this war. But let me share with you a little secret: whether we call it Christianity, or liberalism, or pluralism, or humanism, the simplest way to become a beaten down and submissive droid like your parents is to adopt this viewpoint. The secret is that out of all the beliefs you can potentially adopt, almost all are derived from liberalism, and therefore, basically the same.

Be a hippie or a Republican, an anarchist or a Green, a Libertarian or a Communist. It doesn't matter. You're still upholding the same basic broken belief system that originates in the Jewish idea that morality should preserve the individual at all costs, and avoid personal sacrifice; this is in dramatic contrast to the Indo-Aryan ideal that ideals should be upheld at all costs, as they are the basis of structure in our lives. No matter how much you rebel, with Che Guevara posters on your walls and emo in the CD player, you're still acting through the same tired drama that has torn down every civilization, which is a progressive distancing from reality and regression into the individual.

This type of thinking makes it easy to be beaten down. You can't have any strong opinions, because that would offend someone, and therefore be not only un-liberal but bad for business. You can't desire any change outside that mythological beast known as your "personal life," because that might conflict with someone else's desires - no matter how insane - and thus cause offense and loss of business. Finally, you can't ever suggest that the way we do things - liberalism - is in error, because it's clearly a "good" thing and also a socially-accepted one. Keep these ideas in your head, and soon it won't be worth fighting and you'll give in to the flow. You will have become your parents. 28899.7618923245

BlogTerrorist said...

How do you get a Mexican woman pregnant?
Jizz in her shoes, and let the flies do the rest!

How many Mexicans does it take to grease an axle?
One if you hit 'em just right.

How many Mexicans does it take to grease a combine?
It all depends upon how fast you run them through.

Why is a Spic like a Skunk?
Because they're half black and half white, and smell like shit.

Why doesn't the state of Texas electrocute Mexican prisoners anymore?
Grease fires are too hard to put out.

Why do niggers put their garbage out in clear plastic bags?
So Mexicans can window shop.

What's the difference between a cue ball and an illegal immigrant?
The harder you hit them, the more English you get out of them.

Why don't niggers marry Mexicans?
Their kids would be too lazy to steal!

Why doesn't Mexico ever host the Olympics?
Because all the Mexicans that can run, jump,
and swim are in America already.

What do you call a Mexican without a lawn mower?
Unemployed

There is a Mexican, a nigger and an Asian in a car, who is driving?
The Cop!

Why doesn't Mexico have a NAVY?
Because cardboard don't float.

Why is it wrong to push a car off a cliff with three Mexicans in it? Because you can fit five?

What's a Mexican fortune cookie?
A taco shell with food stamps in it.

Why don't whites throw rocks at Mexican driven cars?
Because it might be theirs.

How many Mexicans can you fit in a Pinto?
20
How do you get them in?
Throw in a five dollar bill.
How do you get them out?
Throw in a job application

What do you call a Mexican baptismal?
Bean dip
What do you call a Mexican being baptized?
Bean dip.
What do you call 5000 Mexican's in a pool?
Bean dip

Why do Mexicans have mustaches?
They want to be like their moms!

Where do u hide cash from a Mexican?
Under the soap!

Why do Mexicans drive low riders?
So they can pick lettuce while they cruise

How do you know how many Mexicans are in a Safeway?
Count the Pintos and multiply by 20.

Why were there only 3000 Mexicans at the Alamo?
They only had 4 cars.

What do you call a Mexican in a two-story house?
Adopted.

Who's the richest person in Mexico?
The one that gets it.....

How do you take a census in Mexico?
Throw in a bar of soap and count the number of people running away.

How do you count the population of Mexico?
Roll a quarter down the street and count the people running after it.

What did the Mexican kid down the block get for his birthday? The bike you threw out 3 weeks ago.

Know why Mexican women wear long dresses?
To hide the bug strips. [Picture]

Why did the Mexicans fight so hard to take the Alamo?
So they could have four clean walls to write on.

Why do Mexican girls wear panties?
To keep their ankles warm.

What's the most confusing day for a Mexican?
Father's Day!

How do you tell a Mexican girl from a Jewish girl?
A Mexican girl's jewelry is fake, but her orgasms are real.

What do you call a pregnant Mexican?
Bean Bag.
What do you call an old Mexican woman?
Bean bag

How many spics does it take to have a bath?
Five, one to lie in the tub and four to spit on him.

Why don't Mexicans play hide and seek?
Because no one will look for them.

Why do Mexicans have re-fried beans?
Have you ever heard of a Mexican doing anything right the first time?

How can you tell a Mexican airline?
It's the one with hair under the wings.

What do you get when you cross a Mexican with an octopus?
I don't know but it sure can pick lettuce.

Why can't spics be firefighters?
They can't tell Jose from hose B.

Q: How do you give a mexican a concussion?
A: Smash his head with the toilet seat while he's drinking.

Q: Why do flies have wings?
A: To beat the mexicans to the trash can.

Q: How many mexican's does it take to grease a car?
A: Just one if you hit him right.

Q: Why did the mexicans have to move out of the house?
A: Because they couldn't figure out how to flush the pool.

Q: How many cops does it take to arrest a mexican?
A: Ten. 1 to hold the mexican, and 9 to hold the oranges.

Q: Why do mexicans buy Cabbage Patch dolls?
A: Because they come with birth certificates.

Q: Why don't mexicans have any Olympic teams?
A: Because all the mexicans who can run, jump, and swim are over here.

Q: Why is there so little great mexican literature?
A: Spray paint wasn't invented until 1950.

Q: Why is the average age of the mexican army 40?
A: Because they take them right out of high school.

Q: What are the three most difficult years in a mexicans life?
A: Second grade.

Q: What do you call a mexican without a lawnmower?
A: Unemployed.

Q: What is a mexican's favorite sport?
A: Boxing... Boxing oranges!

Q: What do you call a building full of mexicans?
A: Jail.

Q: Why did the mexican cross the road?
A: To get from the gas station to the orange groves.

Q: How do you fit 100 mexicans in a phone booth?
A: Throw in a food stamp.

Q: How do you get them out?
A: Throw in a bar of soap.

Q: What do you call a taco with a food stamp inside it?
A: A mexican fortune cookie.

Q: What's the slowest thing in the world?
A: A mexican funeral precession with only 1 set of jumper cables.

Q: Who's the best man at a mexican wedding?
A: The guy with the jumper cables.

Q: Why don't they teach driver's education and sex education on the same day in
Mexico?
A: They don't want to wear out the donkey.

Q: Why do mexicans wear sombreros?
A: So they have a place to put their taco when they are stealing your hubcaps.

Q: Why do mexican's drive lowriders?
A: So they can pick the cabbage.

Q: Why do they have hydraulics?
A: When all the cabbage is gone, they can then pick apples.

Q: What do you say to a mexican in uniform?
A: I'll have a big mac, coke and fries.

Q: What do you call sex with a mexican?
A: Rape.

Q: Why don't mexicans have barbecues?
A: Because the beans keep falling through the Grill!

Q: Why do mexicans have re-fried beans?
A: Have you ever heard of a Mexican doing anything right the first time?

Q: What's the name of Mexico's telephone company?
A: "Taco Bell."

Q: A mexican spent one whole hot day mowing the lawn, why couldn't he go inside the
house and grab a sip of water?
A: It wasn't his house.

Q: Who's the best man at a Mexican wedding?
A: The guy with the jumper cables.

Q: Did you hear about the two mexicans on "That's Incredible"?
A: One had auto insurance and the other was an only child.

Q: Why do mexicans eat beans?
A: So they can have a bubble bath.

Q: How do you know that Superman isn't mexican?
A: Because he would steal wheels off air planes if he was.

Q: Why do most mexican men have mustaches?
A: Because they want to look like their mothers.

Q: How can you tell a mexican airline?
A: It's the one with hair under the wings.

Q: Why don't mexicans like blow jobs?
A: They don't like ANY kind of jobs.

Q: What do you call a mexican with an IQ of 176?
A: A village.

Q: What do you call a mexican paratrooper?
A: Instant air pollution.

Q: How many mexicans does it take to grease a car?
A: Just one if you hit him right.

Q: What do you get when you cross a mexican with an octopus?
A: I don't know but it sure can pick lettuce.

Q: Why are scientists breeding mexicans instead of rats for experiments?
A: They multiply faster and you don't get as attached to them.


There were three construction workers, one was mexican, one was English, and the other
was polish. They were on the high scaffolding of the building they were building, and they
were eating lunch. The Mexican looked in his lunch, and said,"A taco, if I get a taco one
more time I'm going to jump off this building!"
The English guy looked in his lunch, and said,"Crumpets, if I get crumpets one more time
I'm going to jump off this building!"
Then the Polish guy looked in his lunch and said,"Polish sausage, if I get this sausage one
more time I'm going to jump off of this building!"
The next day they all got the same lunch, and they all jumped off the building, and died.
At the funeral the Mexican's wife said,"If he would have told me he didn't want tacos I
would have made him something different."
Then the English guy's wife said,"If he would have told me he didn't want crumpets I
would have made him something else."
Then the Polish guy's wife said,"I don't understand, he made his own lunch."

A Mexican tried to get into the United States. He was stopped at the
border and questioned as to why he wanted in this country and how long
he would stay.
He told them that he wanted to live there and become a citizen. The
officer said, "Okay, if you use yellow, pink, and green in a sentence, I
will let you in."
The Mexican thought and thought. He finally said, "The telephano goes
green, green, green. So I pink it up and say 'yellow'!"

Q: What do you call four Puerto Ricans in quicksand?
A: Quatro cinco

Q: What do you call a Mexican hitchiker ?
A: El Paso

Q: What do you call a Mexican baptism?
A: Bean dip

Q: What's a "feel-up"?
A: It's what you get at a Mexican gas station.

Q: What do you get when you cross an Arab with a Mexican?
A: Oil of Ole'

Q: What do you call a Texan?
A: A Mexican who ran out of gas going to Oklahoma

Ever hear of the redneck who thought that "Manual Labor" was the new
Mexican President?

Q: What is six miles long and moves five miles an hour?
A: A Mexican funeral with only one set of jumper cables

There are two Mexicans are talking. One is a new resident of
the town. The first Mexican says to the other,"Hey, vato, this
town is pretty rough. All the Mexicans know how to fight. So
watch your back."

The other Mexican replies,"I don't need to worry, because I know
Mexican Judo." And the first Mexican asks, "What's Mexican Judo?"
The second says, "Ju don't know if I have a gun; Ju don't know if
i have a knife. . ."

A Russian, a Mexican and a Texan are all sitting around a
campfire.
The Russian pulls out a bottle of Vodka, slams it down, throws
it up in the air and shoots it. He announces to his companions,
"There is plenty of Vodka in Russia."
The Mexican takes out a bottle of Tequila. He slams it, throws
it up in the air and shoots it. He turns to the Russian and
says, "there's plenty of Tequila in Mexico."
The Texan takes his good ole american bottle of beer, slams it
down, throws it up in the air and shoots the Mexican. He turns
to the Russian and says, "there's to many Mexicans in Texas!"

Juan comes up to the Mexican border on his bicycle. He's got two large
bags over his shoulders. The guard stops him and says, "What's in the
bags?"
"Sand," answered Juan.
The guard says, "We'll just see about that. Get off the bike." The guard
takes the bags and rips them apart. He empties them out and finds nothing
in them but sand. He detains Juan overnight and has the sand analyzed,
only to discover that there is nothing but pure sand in the bags.
The guard releases Juan, puts the sand into new bags, hefts them onto the
man's shoulders, and lets him cross the border.
A week later, the same thing happens. The guard asks, "What have you got?"
"Sand," says Juan.
The guard does his thorough examination and discovers that the bags contain
nothing but sand. He gives the sand back to Juan, and Juan crosses the
border on his bicycle.
This sequence of events if repeated every day for three years. Finally,
Juan doesn't show up one day and the guard meets him in a Cantina in
Mexico.
"Hey, Buddy," says the guard, "I know you are smuggling something. It's
driving me crazy. It's all I think about. I can't sleep. Just between you
and me, what are you smuggling?"
Juan sips his beer and says, "Bicycles."

Q: What's the national anthem of Puerto Rico?
A: "Attention K-Mart shoppers..."

Q: What did you name the offspring of a blonde and a Puerto Rican?
A: Retardo.

A high ranking official from the Clinton Administration was invited to
speak at a banquet tendered by the Don Q Rum Corp. in Puerto Rico.
The man delivered his speech nobly, but for one fatal flaw. He persisted in
referring to his hosts as the "makers of that wonderful Bacardi rum."
Every time he mentioned the competing name "Bacardi", an official from
Don Q would jump up and correct him saying, "Don Q, senor, Don Q!"
The smiling Clinton aide would answer, "You're welcome."

Q. What do you get when you cross a mexican and an italian?
A. A guy who makes an offer you can't understand

Q. Why do mexicans have noses?
A. For something to pick in the winter time

Q. Why did they cancel drivers ed. in mexico?
A. The donkey died

Q. What did the mexican do with his first 50 cent piece?
A. He married her

Q. Why do mexicans eat refried beans?
A. Ever see a mexican that didn't screw things up the first time
or
so they can take a bubble bath at night

Q. How many mexicans does it take to grease a car?
A. Just one if you hit him right

Q. What do you get when you cross a mexican with an octopus?
A. I don't know but it sure picks tomatoes

Q. Why are scientists breeding mexicans instead of rats for experiments?
A. They multiply faster and you don't get as attached to them

Q. What do you get when you cross a mexican and a vietnamese?
A. A car thief that can't drive

Q.Did you hear about the two mexicans on that's incredible?
A. One had auto insurance and the other one was an only child

Q: Why did the Mexican throw his wife off the cliff?
A: TEQUILA

-There is an American, a German, and a Mexican.
They are in all in a boat.
The boat is about to sink.
Each of them have to throw things out to make the boat lighter!
The German throws out 4 cases of beer and says:
"We have a lot of bear in Germany so we don't need these!"
The Mexican throws out 5 cases of burritos and says:
"We have a lot of burritos in Mexico so we don't need these!"
The American grabs the Mexican and throws him out.
The German asks why he threw the Mexican out.
And the American replies:
"We have a lot of Mexicans in America so we don't need him!.
-There was a German, an American, and a Mexican.

They were walking in the woods.
Suddenly a heard of buffalo came at them.
They ran and ran until they saw a shack and went in it.
2 days later the buffalo left.
The men got out of the shack only to find layers of crap everywhere!
They were forced to jump in because there was no way out.
The German took a leap and said,
" It's not bad, it's only up to my waist. "
The American took a leap and said,
" It's not bad, it's only up to my knees. "
Then the Mexican took a leap and said,
" It's not bad, it's only up to my ankles. "
The American asked, " How did you do that. "
The Mexican replied in a muffled voice, " I jumped in head first. "

-Why do Mexicans re-fry their beans?
Have you seen a Mexican do anything right the first time?

-Why do Mexicans eat Tomales for Christmas?
So they have something to unwrap

-What are the first three words in every Mexican cookbook?
"Steal a chicken..."

A Britisher, a Frenchman, a Mexican and a Texan were on a small
plane. All of a sudden the engine sputtered and they realized
that they had to lighten the load or else all would die. Only one
could stay on the plane, so they drew straws and the Mexican got
to stay.
The British fellow steps to the door, yells "God save the Queen!"
and jumps out.
The Frenchman goes to the door, places his hat over his heart,
yells "Viva la France!" and jumps out.
The Texan gets up, hollers "Remember the Alamo!" and pushes the
Mexican out.

Q: Why didn't Mexico have an Olympic national team at NAGANO?
A: Because everyone who could run, jump, or swim has already crossed the border.

WHAT DO YOU CALL A MEXICAN WITH A
VASECTOMY?
A dry Martinez.40820.0992618493

BlogTerrorist said...

Sure our lives by either quality or quantity. If it was a great steak, we say so and leave it at that; if it was mediocre, we say that sixteen ounces of it for thirty dollars was a "good deal." The quantitative view is most popular because it is accessible to everyone, since only those who are endowed by nature with the sense to know a good steak from a crappy one can tell you its qualitative value. Since most people are not so fortunate, we talk about what a "great deal" it is that you can get something that legally qualifies as steak in prodigious amounts at a low price per pound. This is the essence of democratic liberal free enterprise society, in that it eschews all things which require a higher kind of person and replace them with the kind of assessments even a moron can follow (and congratulate himself for the "good deal" he's getting).

But how does the qualitative work in a society? After all, say the "wise" pundits, wouldn't it be hard to organize a society around qualitative value, since only a few can assess it? This column offers an example in the small. Peer-to-peer file sharing can take many forms, but one of the most common is that of a hub; this is a small community where people exchange files. Normally, to get on a hub, you must have some quantity of files to be shared, and without that, you can be excluded "fairly" because, of course, everyone can see that you need to have a minimum amount of stuff to get on. Like cheap steak, it might be stuff that would only appeal to morons, but it shows you've done the effort and therefore deserve to be on the hub - that's "fair," sensu liberal democracy.

The hub toward which A.N.U.S. contributes, the neoclassical hub, does not operate this way. There is no minimum share size to get on, and there is no reward for having more stuff; instead of quantity, the hub focuses on quality, because unlike liberal democracies it recognizes that unlimited moronic music is not "equal" to a small amount of quality music, no matter how much the average voter can't tell the difference. You can get on the hub right now and start participating, but the admins who periodically peruse shares will eventually check out what you have and -- Slipknot? Cradle of Filth? Pantera? -- those who have moronic music get booted. I frequently get mail from these people, objecting that their ejection was not "fair," and these mails invariably contain the line, "But I had (amount) of share!" These people are used to a quantitative, passive society, where no matter what the quality, as long as you get enough there to put a number in the blank on the form, you're considered part of the club.

Not to say that a hub is a club, of course - a hub is a tool for sharing files, and a social space, as well. But what it is more than anything else is a reflection of the values of those who meet there. People who want to listen to crowd-pleasing music go to the bigger hubs and hang out with other people who like Britney, or cool jazz, or light rock, or even indiscriminate metal and grindcore - what the crowd wants is acceptance for mere quantitative participation, such as the number one (1) - if there is an (1) individual, then it should be equal, and admitted to the club, because - look - it exists, after all. This is what the crowd always desires, which is the paradoxical concept of group participation through pseudo-individuality. You can't tell them their taste in music sucks, because then they'll wail about how they've been wronged and it's not "fair."

For those who have made their way out of the biggest slice of groupthink, it's healthier to find an enclave, or a smaller place where their views are protected from the majority view, which is the quantitative. If you have unending time and nothing better to do, it might appeal to you to listen to all 100,000 death metal, grindcore, black metal and heavy metal bands yet created. More likely, unless you're a retarded invalid, you've got other things to do and so depend on finding the quality stuff through socialization and information resources. Naturally, the crowd will oppose you wherever you try to do this, as they like to believe either (a) that all music is equal or (b) that the most popular music is the best, and therefore you don't need to actually look - just see what they're playing on the radio now; "trust us." The enclave ideal is naturally opposed to that of open to the public group participation.

Any social unit based on this notion of qualitative logic, and eschewing unnecessary quantitative logic, would naturally be a better place to live. Quantitative logic gets you the lowest common denominator, but if you return assessment to that of degree of quality, you instead get only the better efforts. Select the better people to be part of this community; that's inherent to its nature. Let them pick the better art, learning, science and products, and then you've got less garbage (inferior products break frequently, and can rarely be repaired). When they make rules, they don't have to worry about everyone - oh no, fat people in wheelchairs cannot fit into our new library - but those who actually make a difference. To people concerned about quality, the opinions of the mass are not important, and thus they don't have to worry about offending people and can actually tell it like they see it - something you cannot do in our liberal democracy, or you'll be blacklisted and investigated and eventually forced to take a job as a janitor somewhere.

A qualitative society is by nature structured toward building consensus. If you have something of quality, you hold it up as a shining example, and what is agree on is not that we should all have a similar quantity of thing, but that we should all work toward having a similar quality of character, strength, intelligence in ourselves. Since your society only admits people of quality, you don't have to assume that every other person on the street is a moron, and thus can have compassion for random people in society - and have the option to socialize more, since you don't have to first apply a filter to screen out the idiots. This is how society used to be, but it was lost in the populist revolt that demanded we all be equal and have an equal right to quantities of money; see what you've given up, in order to please the crowd? Well - at least on this hub, there's a sliver of what once was, and what, if we work toward it, will be again.
39121.0440518791

BlogTerrorist said...

Modernity
There can be nothing more frustrating than trying to explain something to someone who cannot perceive it. It is not that they will not; if they had that kind of decision on their hands, they could understand. Not did not; they simply lack the ability to, now or forevermore, process the kind of detail required. This type of thinking is not detail-obsessed, but it require that one build a mental picture of the future based on many tiny details, because, and I hope this isn't a news flash, life rarely spells out its plans in big bold letters on the wall in front of you. All myths to the contrary, life is plenty happy to let you wander right up to disaster and linger by it for awhile until, figuring the coast is clear, you take one too many steps and BOOM, it comes crashing down on your ass.

When I tell people that modern society has a great and pervasive disease, the common response is either (a) I don't see it or (b) well, I'm doing okay, so why would I worry? The former is at least honest; the paradoxical bitterness of relativity is that it doesn't excuse one for not seeing the truth, but admits that most people literally have limitations as to how much complexity they can handle, and thus what they can perceive. An idiot sees a house on fire; a genius sees a fire extinguisher in one corner. The second group of people need more analysis, as they claim to have knowledge of impending doom, yet paradoxically, claim it does not affect them. A genius sees a house on fire and gets the fire extinguisher; an idiot simply closes the door to his room - out of sight, out of mind.

So here we are in the world where no one can perceive how deeply screwed things may be. There are thousands of details that must be correlated to see the whole picture. Most people can't drive a car through an intersection in a timely manner, or figure out routine transactions. They are distracted by their own drama, and thus they screw everything up and take forever, then get weepy if confronted. The streets are lined with giant, ugly buildings in which impersonal agencies dole out rigid policies and god help you if you're an exception. Government takes in money and sends out fines and prison sentences for gross violations. Those who are smart avoid the law while ripping people off, legally, and thus have the best of both worlds.

Few notice, but we're steadily consuming more nonrenewable resources. There will be no more gasoline; there's a finite amount. Most people cannot even comprehend that sentence to understand its implications. There is no more land that is going to be created; there is only so much land, and we use more of it each year. Everywhere one looks, the signs are there, if one knows what to look at. Jobs are hilarious shuffling of papers and conning of fellow humans into believing one illusion over the other and, thus approved, transferring one sum of money into another. People live for empty, pointless lives. The highpoint of their day is often television, or consumption of products. Interpersonal relations consist of attacking others and trying to drag them down to make yourself feel better. What kind of life is this?

One thing that astounds any sane observer is how people are isolated mentally in modern society. For example, today I saw some guy in a wheelchair selling candy at an intersection. He'd pull up right beside cars and sell you M

BlogTerrorist said...

The Paradox of Individuality:


The roots of modernity stem from the importance placed in the individual above all else. Modern society places emphasis on society as a collection of individuals, rather than on society as a unit of smaller pieces reaching for a goal much as an organism is created out of organs working towards a single goal- sustaining the existence of the whole. Because of this focus on the pieces, fragmented and separated from the whole, consensus can never be achieved, except to the lowest possible values- comfort mainly, as seemingly all other popular values, whether in a physical sense as drives most consumerism, or in a mental sense, as in entertainment and illusions of personal importance, which act to cause the one enjoying them to cease thinking about issues of mortality or accomplishment (or, more specifically, lack thereof).



In order for this happy impotence to continue existing, it requires that every individual be given not only the mental comfort outlined above, but none to excel in any meaningful way, for that would be implying that not everybody is equal, and would shatter the blissful numbness. Echoes of "Brave New World" and "Paradise Lost" should be ringing loudly in the reader's head right now; in guaranteeing comfort and a comfortable self-esteem for all, it stifles all potential towards anything other than mediocrity.



The reason that this goes unnoticed by most people is because of the adornments to one's affectation that this system allows. Every person can choose to put on a different superficial role, their own dysfunction, while acting like everyone else. They can choose to buy the Britney Spears CDs because of their complete faith in blind hedonism to lead them through any situation, or they can buy their favorite album from Linkin Park to demonstrate their unfocused anger. At their root, though, they're engaging in the same action- purchasing a plastic product to demonstrate their "uniqueness" for playing this role, which will be forgotten and thrown away within a few months (popular music aims at expressing nothing other than base, meaningless sentiments, and thus is wholly disposable and similar).



Most people, being unable to create great works or take action towards a cause in any form, love this form of individuality because it allows them to think that they're an individual without having to exert any sort of effort to distance themselves from the norm; it allows them to be equally important to the person who writes great symphonies, or is the greatest warrior, despite their complete lack of distinction. Thus, they create mobs which operate wholly to provide a place for the individual's sense of ego, and harshly attack all that pose some threat to their sense of self importance; which happens to be basically anyone who has some distinction in their merit, rather than the role that they play and call a "personality". Thus, the paradox of individuality is revealed; through holding up the concept of the individual above all else, it forces everyone to be the same, undistinguished person.
29757.8571023412

BlogTerrorist said...

The Paradox of Individuality:


The roots of modernity stem from the importance placed in the individual above all else. Modern society places emphasis on society as a collection of individuals, rather than on society as a unit of smaller pieces reaching for a goal much as an organism is created out of organs working towards a single goal- sustaining the existence of the whole. Because of this focus on the pieces, fragmented and separated from the whole, consensus can never be achieved, except to the lowest possible values- comfort mainly, as seemingly all other popular values, whether in a physical sense as drives most consumerism, or in a mental sense, as in entertainment and illusions of personal importance, which act to cause the one enjoying them to cease thinking about issues of mortality or accomplishment (or, more specifically, lack thereof).



In order for this happy impotence to continue existing, it requires that every individual be given not only the mental comfort outlined above, but none to excel in any meaningful way, for that would be implying that not everybody is equal, and would shatter the blissful numbness. Echoes of "Brave New World" and "Paradise Lost" should be ringing loudly in the reader's head right now; in guaranteeing comfort and a comfortable self-esteem for all, it stifles all potential towards anything other than mediocrity.



The reason that this goes unnoticed by most people is because of the adornments to one's affectation that this system allows. Every person can choose to put on a different superficial role, their own dysfunction, while acting like everyone else. They can choose to buy the Britney Spears CDs because of their complete faith in blind hedonism to lead them through any situation, or they can buy their favorite album from Linkin Park to demonstrate their unfocused anger. At their root, though, they're engaging in the same action- purchasing a plastic product to demonstrate their "uniqueness" for playing this role, which will be forgotten and thrown away within a few months (popular music aims at expressing nothing other than base, meaningless sentiments, and thus is wholly disposable and similar).



Most people, being unable to create great works or take action towards a cause in any form, love this form of individuality because it allows them to think that they're an individual without having to exert any sort of effort to distance themselves from the norm; it allows them to be equally important to the person who writes great symphonies, or is the greatest warrior, despite their complete lack of distinction. Thus, they create mobs which operate wholly to provide a place for the individual's sense of ego, and harshly attack all that pose some threat to their sense of self importance; which happens to be basically anyone who has some distinction in their merit, rather than the role that they play and call a "personality". Thus, the paradox of individuality is revealed; through holding up the concept of the individual above all else, it forces everyone to be the same, undistinguished person.
90118.6461407431

BlogTerrorist said...

Progress versus Getting it Right

A short note on the nature of life: all of what goes on in the human mind is pure creation, construction,
words and symbols and designs used to describe something that exists outside of our minds. That doesn't
mean that it isn't an objectively-functioning world out there; try putting your hand in a moving blender
and you'll see the world is very consistent in its actions. However, this world is sometimes maintained
by some very spacy ideas, like chaos theory or cosmic idealism, and may not even be "real" in any sense
of physical matter existing. However, insofar as events go on in it, it is "real" and you are subject to
the forces of its reality.

Being able to understand both the unreality of life, and its mundane but effective physicality, is the
essence of what is required to be a realist. Realists do not trouble themselves by trying to explain away
reality with bad science or bad religion. They look at the world, take good as well as bad, and adapt.
This is their ultimate game and goal and it makes sense, if one is a complex organism who cares about
function, to take this course of action.

Fools, on the other hand, either deny significance beyond the material, or assert the existence of some
fantasy world that is either more important than reality or "describes" reality in some way that is
assumed to be important. They confuse our evaluation of the world (mind) with its actuality (body), and
thus we call them dualists, a term that in itself is dual: dualists believe in a world beyond this one,
and most commonly construct it along the lines of mind/body separation. Those of us who are realists are
unitivists: we believe the physical world, our minds, and any significance or values abstracted from
those are part of a contiguous, rational system (although not rational in a linear sense).

Because I am a late-night psychopath reader who likes a good story more than the pretentious crap that
passes for literature of late (two exceptions: Tom Wolfe and William Gibson), I found myself digging into
"Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton. Yes, yes, I know, it's garbage - but only on the surface. Crichton's
goal, since the wildly successful "Andromeda Strain" that kept him from having to practice medicine, has
been to wrap a small amount of adventure around a discussion of scientific implications. Unlike most
scientists, with the possible exception of Carl Sagan, Crichton directs his critical eye not toward the
technology itself but toward its meaning via its effect on the world and our lives.

As such, he's both a brutal cynic, and a breathtaking concept writer, in that he grasps exactly what is
scaring us at any given time and explains it in such a way that those of average or higher IQ can
perceive its strengths and dangers. He's good at not becoming a hysterical liberal, but hasn't yet lapsed
into the complacent "as long as the stock market's still up" attitude of most American/English-style
"conservatives." What's great about this book is that he takes issue with modern society's explosion of
technology, and points out that no one considers the consequences.

Ian Malcolm, a (homosexual) British mathematician, is the voice of the author in this work; not only do
quotes from him introduce each chapter, but his lengthy monologues summarize one of the two major topic
areas of this book. The first, obviously, is genetic engineering - bringing an ancient form back to life.
It is counterbalanced by a study of chaos theory, in which Crichton attempts to explain how natural
systems work. The result shows hard science in the grips of forces its unleashers cannot understand,
namely the tendencies of systems to achieve and lose balance, and this metaphor forms the basis of
Crichton's lesson to modern science.

He uses harsh words for recent epochs. Most technical people and scientists are "thintelligent," Malcolm
says, meaning that they can function well in a high-intensity narrow bandwidth of thought, but are lost
to practical implications or systemic thinking. Crichton uses the words linear thinking several times,
and lambasts the west for adopting this form of thought, although he does not trace it to its
Jewish-Christian roots (Crichton grew up in a Jewish neighborhood in NYC, but seems to be a gentile). He
illustrates this crisis several times through the behavior of his characters, who are always just saying
"Well, now our technology is working again" when some dinosaur comes crashing through the wall and eats a
coworker.

It's a form of subtle comedy usually found in horror movies. Crichton makes his points, however, and
since this writing is not here to review the book, let us move on to the next point: Crichton also makes
a classic error of the type made by scientists and not philosophers, and it's nearly unforgivable. He
posits that linear science is "obsolete," and we need to move on, much as we moved on from medieval
times. In this, he reveals his ignorance by adhering to the progressive fallacy.

Espoused by Hegel, lambasted by Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and anyone else with a brain, the progressive
fallacy is that idea that we are always growing toward a "new" higher state of humankind. You can hear
echoes of this in the dumbshits who, if anything is proposed, state they don't want an existing path but
want something "new." It's also found extensively in media and commerce, which benefits quite a bit from
the automatic assumption that of two things, the newer one is better. In a book excoriating linear
science, how about some words for how stupid linear history is?

If one reads widely enough, and deeply enough, it becomes clear that history is linear only insofar as
our measurement of time is (whether time "really is" linear or not is for another debate - we perceive it
as linear; end of story). According to traditionalists and ancient sources, "history" is a process much
like the lives of individuals, by which civilizations are born, grow old and fat, and finally decay into
sordid collapse. Crichton alludes to a scientific version of this philosophy when he notes that
fluctuations in cotton prices over the last century mirror their vicissitudes during the course of an
average day. Why doesn't he again turn his mirror to history?

The answer is that like most of us moderns, he's well-educated in linear thinking in ways even he, not a
dumb man by any stretch, cannot recognize. He's like Hegel: a well-intentioned innocent who needed to be
more warlike and cruel in his thinking, slicing away the ideas that mostly made sense and replacing them
with ideas that always did. The progressive view of history is with us always, whether in television
commercials or political speeches. It's a convenient way of assuming that no one else has seen what we
have, and that we're "unique" in this time - all of which seems to me to be a way of staving off death.

Even if our technology never occurred on earth before, and our societies have encountered configurations
that did not previously exist, when looked at from a higher-level design analysis, nothing that is
happening now has not happened in the past - and the consequences of our now are just as obvious as they
were for past societies. It's another way of saying that, while the scenery might change, the play
doesn't - the emotions and motivations of the actors are as real in one time as in another. Thus what
ancient Greeks observed is still observable and relevant today, as are observations that are much older.

What Crichton bemoans - our tendency to see the world only through the eyes of science, and thus how we
can change raw materials into some kind of product - has its roots in many things. How to explain that?
Quite simply: it's a lower level of thinking than the enlightened thinking required to see what must be
done. When one gets over the linear model of history, and sees past the "progressive" view, it becomes
clear that there are no "new" thoughts, only thoughts in new contexts with varying degrees of correct and
incorrect adaptation to our situation. This is realism, and only in realism do we find an escape from the
twin barriers of materialism and dualistic idealism.

I could wax on with more philosophical terms, but you can look them up - I recommend the Cambridge
Encyclopedia of Philosophy and an Oxford English Dictionary, for starters (if not, there's SEP). At some
point even talking too much on any topic makes it wanking, as one either is able to see the truth of the
situation, or casting around blindly - more of something (experience, wisdom, intelligence, time) is
needed. Part of what Crichton's saying that is also being said in this article is simply that life is
real, and when we make decisions, we should place the airy logic secondary to a practical view of life as
something in which we live.

Crichton points out that we cannot destroy life on earth, which is a way of saying that, no matter how
much humanity screws up, life will come back, although it will not be as developed as as great as what we
have now; it's a backhanded slam at humanity's recklessness. In saying this, he communicates something
important: we should make the right decisions for our own benefit, as right now, we're in a
self-destructive tailspin of bad values. Having now experienced enough of life, both sane (good) and
insane (destructive), I can say that I prefer sane because destructive values always lead to devolution
and thus more boring existences.

Further, if Crichton ever transcends his linear view of history, he'll come upon a great truth of our
world: to live as a Romantic is the only way to live, and if one is a Romantic, one does not hunger for
"new" things, but for what is eternally true. One does not need the "progressive" view of history in
order to realize that a well-fought battle, a lifelong love, a feast of friends, etc. is an eternally
good - sane, adaptive, evolutionary, logical - thing. We rail against "good" and "evil" because they
remove judgment from practicality into some weird abstraction, and from that we get a progressive view of
history, moving from ancient evil to modern good. I wish the dinosaurs would tear that one down and throw
it into the fires, as humanity would be healthier if in its absence it instead focused on reality.

July 17, 2005
12984.3477013059

BlogTerrorist said...

How to Become Your Parents

We all know what it is that makes our parents so distinctive: adults are more beaten down than children because they've seen more frustration and hence, written off more avenues of approach in life. We're all familiar with the sayings they have. Don't fight it, go with the flow, it's just how things are. Don't resist, give up, go along, in other words. For this reason, most people have a nagging fear of being "conformist" like their parents.

What your parents are, more than anything else, is practical. They've set aside a few things they can control and written off the rest, knowing - if they're smart - intuitively that things such as democracy, free enterprise, etc. are covers for the vast ongoing kleptocracy of modern government. They no longer have time for ideals because in their experience, every ideal gets dragged down into the same old thing. You can avoid this, if you want to, but it requires thinking outside of what is commonly accepted as an ideal.

It used to be (1960s) that the way to become your parents was to be conservative. If your only values were earning money and going to church, by god, you'd be a parent in no time at all. The reason for this is that conservatism was where the sheep hid back then, because it was the safest ideology. Now the sheep have found an even safer ideology, and that's liberalism, in all of its covert forms - including what passes for "conservatism" today.

The core of liberalism is class warfare, or the ongoing desire to lift up those who are impoverished or oppressed so that there can be social equality. Liberal ideologies from Communism to the Democratic Party to Anarchists to what passes for "Greens" all share this basic thrust. Their fundamental idea is that if we make everyone happy, there will be no strife, and if there's no strife, we will not be personally endangered. And that's where liberal thought ends. It doesn't go on to consider what might make a life meaningful, or make living in a society positive. But it's a perfect ideology for getting along with people.

Think about it. If you encounter people working on your house, bums in the street, impoverished oppressed AIDS patients, etc. you can tell them you're on their side. You believe everyone should have what you do, and as a token of that, you'll hand them a small gift and send them on their way. It's a combination of pacifism, or refusing to fight for what must be done because someone might get hurt, and pity, or finding a way to make others seem puny by giving them things and thus affirming the roles of you as powerful giver and them as weaker receiver. For whatever reason, because it refuses to assert that some ideas are worth fighting for over others, and because it refuses to acknowledge that not all people are equal in ability, liberalism is a very popular belief, even when hidden in a conservative skin in the style of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

However, remember the old adage: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberalism, as good intentions, creates disorder out of society by, instead of putting effort into the growing areas of society, e.g. its excellent people, putting energy into those who are going nowhere and removing any external pressure for them to rise up out of a state of failure. Since liberalism is one of those beliefs composed of moral/ideological projections instead of adaptations to reality, it also puts everyone in spacy cloud-nine fantasyland, where they dream on about how good they are and how the poor are being helped while what they should be focusing on - society as a whole - goes into the toilet. But no one ever got fired for adopting a liberal idea, because if you don't stamp it with allegiance to a certain party (red star), the basic concepts are socially inoffensive. "Sure, I accept every person as my brother or sister."

Liberalism is in fact no different from the conservative Christianity which was the bedrock of conservatism in the 1950s. We fight the Soviets because they don't have "freedom," so what we're doing is morally right. Now we fight "racists" for the same reason, not thinking that perhaps there is no end to this war. But let me share with you a little secret: whether we call it Christianity, or liberalism, or pluralism, or humanism, the simplest way to become a beaten down and submissive droid like your parents is to adopt this viewpoint. The secret is that out of all the beliefs you can potentially adopt, almost all are derived from liberalism, and therefore, basically the same.

Be a hippie or a Republican, an anarchist or a Green, a Libertarian or a Communist. It doesn't matter. You're still upholding the same basic broken belief system that originates in the Jewish idea that morality should preserve the individual at all costs, and avoid personal sacrifice; this is in dramatic contrast to the Indo-Aryan ideal that ideals should be upheld at all costs, as they are the basis of structure in our lives. No matter how much you rebel, with Che Guevara posters on your walls and emo in the CD player, you're still acting through the same tired drama that has torn down every civilization, which is a progressive distancing from reality and regression into the individual.

This type of thinking makes it easy to be beaten down. You can't have any strong opinions, because that would offend someone, and therefore be not only un-liberal but bad for business. You can't desire any change outside that mythological beast known as your "personal life," because that might conflict with someone else's desires - no matter how insane - and thus cause offense and loss of business. Finally, you can't ever suggest that the way we do things - liberalism - is in error, because it's clearly a "good" thing and also a socially-accepted one. Keep these ideas in your head, and soon it won't be worth fighting and you'll give in to the flow. You will have become your parents. 22758.2136677986

BlogTerrorist said...

Groupthink
Language knows no master. If ever a definitive description of life and the best philosophies possible in it will be written, the people who come after will know how to subvert it: they will, starting from the smallest and working up to the grandest, redefine its words to mean something convenient for their own beliefs; they will bend the belief system toward their own by changing the simple equivalencies of terms. As a result, it will become its own opposite, over time, although the fundamental structure will remain.

A term that became popular in the last decade is "groupthink," referring to the social animal herd-tendency which causes people to bleat out dogma without having any idea of how to understand it. Like most pop-culture diagnoses, it favors an us/them approach which makes everyone in the room feel that, by comprehending the term, they have somehow surpassed all the others, and thus have found a new level of understanding. Yet even the term carries a weight of irony, in that not only can it be misinterpreted, but it can be a form of what it describes, by the very nature of this inclusive, devotional, just-sign-here access to what is perceived as absolute truth.

One seemingly ugly reality that confronts us as developed and not nascent beings is that in order to have civilization, or any kind of belief system, most of the people who work within that group have to be thinking on the same page. Of course, popular literature and movies find this appalling, since what happens to individuality? they cry. The grim face of it is that individuality as an absolute doesn't exist, in the sense that each person would be entirely a creation of their own impulse; this is bad math, which has an equation defining itself without reliance on its starting data or even on mathematics itself. This bad math holds that we are each self-creating gods, having no origin and no reality to which our ideas correspond, and that it's most important that we define ourselves apart from all others. Reality contradicts this.

In reality - that distant place where, when the ego-games of youth and pretense of adulthood are spent - we confront the actual mechanisms that sustain our world, and subsume our "it oughtta be this way" rhetoric to practical, this-is-how-we-survive concerns, for any consensus to exist there must be some degree of similar thinking. Obviously, there will always be critics who point to that and scream "groupthink!" and thus run off smugly congratulating themselves for being different and not falling into the herd, when they have no answers for what must be done as a collective, and thus are in denial of reality itself. This doesn't concern them - their whole agenda, literally, is to make themselves look good and thus to get ahead socially and politically. Obviously, these people are death for us all.

So some degree of group agreement is necessary, but is there a danger of groupthink as well? Certainly, and we cannot see it more clearly than in the Marxist and Rightist groups of today. These are composed of parrots, who rehash the same dogma in new forms but accept it unquestioningly and repeat it. There's a danger in that, in that these people do not understand what they parrot. In most cases, this isn't a problem, since most people lack the aptitude or dedication required to understand politics. When leaders succumb to this, however, a certain kind of spiritual death occurs, but even more importantly, a real-world crisis is engendered: they are no longer testing their ideas against reality, but are constructing castles in the sky and pointing to them saying, "well, it oughtta be" - this is the essence of academic Utopianism, and in the only view of history that matters, that which is measured over millennia and not decades, it is a form of calcification that might appear to be as lively and free-spirited as something else.

Critics - or those who passively point and try to tear down ideas, without suggesting anything to replace them except the airy dogma described above - are notorious for pointing out such groupthink, such conformity, and by finding it in some who uphold an idea using it to "discredit" that idea. Without individuality, they proclaim, there is nothing except groupthink, and therefore the whole concept reeks of submission and conformity, they argue, and therefore should be forgotten. They have forgotten however what philosophers have long learned, which is that any philosophy must pass its own tests. The finger pointers who scream "groupthink!," have, paradoxically, succumbed to groupthink itself by finding in anything but absolute granularity a viable solution.

Granularity is like group consensus; some of it is needed, but taken to a calcified extreme, it becomes death. The extreme of granularity is a popular social pose in almost any era, where people claim to take a little bit of this philosophy, and a little bit of that, and thus to have something "unique" to them which represents them and proves their worth, because after all, no single philosophy was good enough for them, so they must be master of all. This is little more than egomania. No civilization, or organization, can be founded on everyone thinking something different in all ways; that lack of consensus becomes a bickering family in which each member undoes the work of every other, fighting for personal control. Hilariously, the response of most granularists is to argue that such bickering is a sign of healthy government or salutory "diversity of discourse," but somehow, nothing ever changes because each individual is an island, caught up in arguing for his or her own form of control. Thus, business as usual goes on behind closed doors, while the drama of politics and leadership resolves nothing.

Clearly democracy belongs to this form of thinking, as it is based on the granular individual and the importance to the ego of having "individual" ideas and the freedom to "express oneself" by picking some "unique" recombination of philosophy to date and proclaiming that it and only it will suffice for that free-thinking, spirited, "different" individual. But what have democracies accomplished? Outside of the big questions, such as attacking when being attacked or dealing with tsunamis, democracies focus entirely inward and create more detailed bickering. As a result, they advance only the basic concepts of democracy, and miss all of the long-term issues of importance. What was democracy's plan for stopping deforestation? For protecting natural species? For ensuring we do not all become drones of a corporate feudal state? Answer: there was none, but there was plenty of diverse and unique discussion!

The greatest groupthink is granularity, as it rejects the idea that any consensus can occurr without "being" groupthink. I put the term "being" in quotes because, while x may "=" y, in real life things aren't so linear. Thus any consensus may include some groupthink, particularly among those who are incapable of any meaningful contribution; this is not terrible, as it turns them from agents of "unique" and divisive philosophies into those can find accord and act it. This could mean that, in contrast to the last 400 years of history, some sort of actual direction and philosophical unity might visit our civilization. We'd all have to give up the illusion of our "uniqueness," however, and realize that what makes us individuals is not some pretense of political activism, but our individual characters: how heroic we are, what tasks we can do well, our emotional makeup, and the like. You can't make an individual out of a political theory!

This is reality, and it will be called "groupthink" too, because nothing threatens each human as an island like something toward which their theories must correspond in actuality. Pragmatism, or simply, realism - what's wrong with it? We live in the same world, subject to the same natural laws. We have roughly the same bodies. Like it or not, the same forces act within us. Thus, for most decisions, we need roughly the same thing; that's the nature of consensus, and that's how civilizations are formed. This isn't as popular as the idea that we are each gods who think up airy rhetoric and make an individualistic self-image construction out of it. Naturally, the ability to fantasize without consequences is usually preferred to dealing with reality...

But reality it is, and is it so terrible? Once we get over our personal pretense, and that's really all it is, of being "different" for having selected a unique mix of products, friends, political ideologies, and reading matter, we can return to focus on ourselves as actual individuals, and to build up our character from within. Individualism is won by facing what you fear and overcoming it, by making yourself better in every way, and by doing what is right regardless of the cost to your physical life or pretense of uniqueness. You weren't created out of nothing, a god in your own right. No - you're a human being, with parents and history culminating in you. Is that so hard to face?

It's not an easy answer, the kind that occurs in a soundbite and sounds good to everyone, so the issue is dropped and we all go back to socializing. Thus, it's never popular. For many people, it demands the impossible, since they are in wheelchairs of a metaphorical or physical type, and cannot achieve greater character or deeds; however, for most of the people you or I would want to know, it's very possible, and when the misleading groupthink of anti-groupthink is revealed, they can get to work on the real character that underlies the public perception of their selves, something we call self-image. And what would we call this overcoming?

It's an end to passivity, for one thing. What is the opposite of passivity? Anything that is active - activity is a category which can include many items. However, the most basic form of active philosophy is realism, of which nihilism and existentialism and idealism are subsets. When you recognize that physical reality is the ultimate reality, and that all of our ideas must address practical solutions within it, you've taken a big step toward personal autonomy by casting aside the illusion that "unique" airy rhetoric somehow makes you distinct from the uncountable horde of others doing exactly the same thing. Anti-groupthink is the new groupthink, and it's part of the same error that got us into our current mess: being passive instead of active.

Active people do not fear agreeing with others. They are confident in how they perceive reality, and have made up their mins about what must be done, and thus do not fear doing it, even if (insert unpopular person here) advocated the same, or the idea is old, or it offends other people. They simply care about doing what is right in a realistic sense. This is the only way to truly cut out groupthink, because it removes a passive focus - caring about what other people think, or trying to belong to a group - and replaces it with a focus on the task. Any shared idea involves some agreement, but agreement is not groupthink, necessarily; however, agreement not to agree on anything for personal pretense always is. Next time you hear someone shriek "groupthink," ask yourself whether this person is looking at reality including the task, or just jerking off to make a higher self-image for themselves.


9953.15974515549

BlogTerrorist said...

Postmorality

If there is one thing humanity needs to hear right now, it is this: "Grow up!" However, this is not the
form of maturity of which is commonly spoken, by which they mean a certain docility and resignation that
allows one to call a job and servitude to social prestige a meaningful life. The usage here refers to the
ultimate maturity, which is an ability to accept reality in all of its positive and negative dimensions,
and resolve to act upon it as is necessary.

We could call this ultimate maturity "realism," because when all the semantic arguments are brushed
aside, and all the ontological concerns shown to be aspects of the same question, we realize that most of
human discourse centers on objects of perception without stopping, first, to form a comprehensive system.
Since there is no explanation for our world as a whole, what replaces logic is an ability to analyze
details intently, without ever discovering the interconnection between data.

This basic failing is akin to us as humans selecting to believe only that which originates in a human
mind, and to relegate reality - the interaction of beings, natural forces, and objects in our physical
real-time world - to second-class status. Whether we pick materialism or dualism, both extremes serve us
badly by taking our attention away from an observation of life and pointing it toward arbitrary
linguistic problems that do not necessarily related to reality.

As such, realism is the king of all scientific outlooks, and herein is its paradox: although we all live
in the same world, not all have the fineness of perceptual analysis to understand realism. Most people
not only "would prefer to" cling to stolid absolutes that require no interpretation or context to be
applied, but also cannot conceive of any other form of belief system. It is only in our recent (400
years) mania for new customers to not offend that we have made the presumption that all people, if "given
the same advantages," can understand the same complex thoughts.

Thus we have a troubling situation, onto which another is rapidly piled: a nearly indefinable belief
based upon a reality in which we all live, but which we perceive to different degrees. Luckily, nature
makes this easy for us, and the best-bred among us are the ones who - owing to greater intelligence,
health and moral character - are able to perceive not only what is, in an immediate sense, but its
function, even over time. These are realists who often move to the next level, which is idealism.

Idealism in the vernacular means something different from philosophical idealism; in philosophical
idealism, one suggests that the world is (a) composed of thought or (b) operates in a similar method to
thought; the two are roughly conflatable, in that if the world operates as thoughts, on the high level of
abstraction at which philosophy works, it might as well be thought. Still, even the most spacy of the
idealists affirm realism as the basis for their idealism. How does this work?

What we call science is the process of deducing structural functions to our world, and then using those
to in turn predict responses to certain events or actions. When we understand how our world works
(realism), we can then turn toward the question of its manipulation (idealism), which is subdivided into
questions of how, which relate directly to our degree of realistic perception, and why, which are more
akin to the goal-setting tendencies of idealism. Realism is perception; idealism is a study of design
both in perception and moral action.

Of course, balancing these two ideas is quite a challenge for almost anyone, and only the smarter ones
among us can do it - but among Indo-Europeans, this is not as small of a population as one might think.
Although the dumbest among us make themselves known as the loudest, there is usually a silent group who
function at a high level of efficiency and care deeply about doing the right thing; these however lack
the impetus to draw attention to themselves, as they already understand a spiritual principle by which
self is secondary to whole. These people understand the secret of nihilism.

Unlike most philosophical systems, which are based on achieving an ideal or asserting a value as higher
than others, nihilism is a discipline. It's a way of training your mind to look at the world, and from
it, as in any fully-developed philosophical system, comes an explanation of the entirety of philosophy as
opened for us by the initial realizations of nihilism. Once again, it's not for everyone; if you don't
get it, you might not be ready, and many among us will never be ready, as they literally lack the
circuitry to understand it. Much as you cannot educate a kitchen blender into a supercomputer, you cannot
make a philosophical genius out of the average mind.

Nihilism seems a paradox. It denies all value, thus obliterating the objective/subjective and mind/body
divisions favored by dualists, yet it upholds the idea of abstract structure ("design") behind our
cosmos, as when one denies value one turns to function, specifically function of the physical world. It
is not, however, materialism, as materialism champions a faith that material comfort and individual
survival are the highest goals that exist; most likely, those who are materialists lack the circuitry to
go further. Nihilism is a form of idealism, in that it posits an order to the universe that can be
understood through logic, but rejects value-judgments as a method of doing this; don't categorize and
classify, suggests nihilism, but describe. Describe structure, not physicality or emotionality.

In this we achieve the beginnings of a fully mature philosophy, something akin to the "pragmatic
idealism" Nietzsche described or the pessimistic Hindu-inspired idealism of Schopenhauer; it is
reminiscent of the beliefs of early Greco-Roman civilizations, where the gods personified natural forces
and were beyond any form of "moral judgment," or classification into good and evil. When the ashes settle
over the last thousand years of Western civilization, it will quickly become clear that moral
classification led us to a kind of linear thought that detached us from a study of systemics, and thus
allowed us to do ludicrously destructive things in the name of details - the individual, an absolute
moral principle, or the need to make some cold hard cash.

One of the best aspects of nihilism and cosmic idealism alike is their rejection of absolute moral
judgments, meaning any type of rule that applies without context and to all people alike. The simplest
example is the hypocrisy over murder in the West; we say murder is wrong, and then murder people for
committing murder. A nihilist avoids the initial error by never saying "murder is wrong," but instead,
electing to murder those who threaten whatever values are held dear. A rapid stratification appears among
human beings at this point, because depending on where we are on the intelligence-moral character scale,
we value different things. Those who are at the higher end of such a scale have valuable opinions, and
the rest... should probably be oppressed.

All philosophical concepts are interrelated, and every philosophical system uses a core concept as an
introduction to all other parts of philosophy; if your system is idealism, for example, you translate all
other philosophical questions into idealist vocabulary, and then analyze them and synthesize responses
from that point. A nihilist system is no different. Nihilism is both radically different from
Christianity, but agrees with it on many points, much as it does with Hinduism and other cosmic idealist
systems. If it has an enemy, it would be the lower-level systems, like materialism and superstition,
which rules out Judaism and Voodoo.

However, any good nihilist does apprehend quickly why in ancient societies the principle of karma/caste
was rapidly attached to a postmoral system: if there is no prohibition against killing, one had better
limit that function to those who know enough to handle it. In the same way we do not give firearms to
three-year-olds, certain privileges must be earned by those who show aptitude and character for them. As
most of the questions of philosophy are complicated enough to take a lifetime, ancient societies tended
to breed people for these roles, thus producing the original definition of aristocracy: the
philosopher-kings and warrior-kings who knew how to wield the power they had.

A modern comparison to this is any form of martial art. The students are taught slowly to take on the
powers of a fully capable fighter, so that alongside raw technique they may absorb years of wisdom - and
be sent away by their teachers if they are psychopaths or otherwise defective. Just as one does not teach
post-911 Arab students to take off in planes but not land them, one does not teach nutcases to kill with
a punch. The caste system is part of this karmic order in that it is recognized that, with each advance
in breeding, the design of the next generation changes; those designs are most likely to function as
their ancestors did. As a result, one creates groups like aristocracies which are bred for the finest
traits and pass them along to their offspring.

This system works surprisingly well. Outside of a few defectives, most people have the abilities of their
parents, if developed by education. Even more importantly, they have the moral inclination and traits of
their parents, and therefore make similar types of decisions. The power of nihilism and postmorality in
ancient societies was kept among those who had for generations proven themselves able to wield it; this
is a more effective system than our modern one, which supposes that "anyone" could be effective with this
kind of power, so we give it to them and hope they don't screw up. Remember that during election year.

What we refer to as postmoralism was designed for elites by breeding, as it is a complex system.
Essentially, traditional "Western" (Judeo-Christian) morality is designed around simple rulesets: evil is
bad, murder is evil, therefore if you murder, you are evil and we should murder you. Postmoral tradition,
as mentioned above, does not waste time banning murder. It asks, simply, was the murder fortunate? which
means: did the murder increase the elegance and graceful function of a natural order? If one has murdered
a child molestor, order is increased and made better; if you murder a child who otherwise would likely
done great things, you are probably a psychopath and should be murdered.

In warfare, for example, murder was viewed as glorious in the idealistic tradition, as those who lost
lives had done so in fulfilment of their place in a natural order, and in doing so, had risen a level in
the karmic cycle by not shirking from what must be done. Even more, victims were sacrifices to the gods
of the nature, and had fulfilled their own role; material fortunes came second to spiritual ones (a
complete reversal of the modern logic). One did not weep for a conquered enemy, but sang for the whole of
nature, as in the growth of better people a more logical order was instituted.

Other examples come to mind. Idealists tended to treat their women better than any other group; they gave
them privileges, had laws against their mistreatment, and tended to murder and mutilate those who
committed rape, incest, and assault in peacetime. In war, it was different; rape of a conquered enemy was
viewed as a chance to increase the breeding potential of that tribe, and was thus a joyful occurrence. If
a warrior with IQ of 140 raped a woman with IQ of 85, the logic went, she received an upgrade (payable in
next generation) of some IQ points, thus all was cool. It's important to note, of course, that idealists
did not engage in world wars for economic and political commodities, thus it's impossible to compare
their actions to those of a modern time.

Another example is money. For those who deserved money as a means of achieving their function, it was
viewed as a natural right and something not to be questioned; for those who did not have such a use, it
was seen as suspect to care too much about it. If you have enough to live and retire, what is the need
for desiring more? - they viewed it in the same way our current society views people who spend their
entire income on pornography and lubricant: obsessive. Money was something granted by the gods for a
purpose, not a purpose in itself, as it is in modernity.

Unfortunately, this system was replaced with a one-size-fits-all system, in which postmoral rules cannot
apply, because they must apply to everyone, equally, in order to be "fair." As one might guess, such a
system was not created by the few highly intelligent ones, but by the masses of unstable and
unspecialized people who inherently fear those who might be more capable than they. The masses won by
numbers, and overwhelmed their leaders and aristocracy, and that brought us the downfall of Greece, of
Rome, and the future downfall of America. It also brought us absolute moral judgment and "good"/"evil."

Now that America has run its course, and it has become clear to even liberals that the system is
collapsing under its own weight and paradox, the idea of a postmoral society is again considered. And, as
all concepts are linked, people are again considering the concept of an aristocracy of our most capable
to wield the kind of unfettered power that such a civilization allows. Creating rigid moral rules, and
then having checks and balances on leaders, hasn't worked; not only has corruption flourished, but we've
been unable to make necessary long-term decisions.

While our system is reassuring to those who fear they are inadequate, it has traded sanity for the
accomodation of those who are defective or underperforming, and not surprisingly, the results have been
terrible. This is why humanity needs to "Grow up!" and realize that we're not all equal, and we need some
qualified leaders fast, before we make ourselves miserable and then in short order, exterminate ourselves
and all that we care about. To take that step, we need to go down the winding path from realism to
idealism through nihilism, and in doing so, to cultivate in ourselves a new maturity.
33369.6908262494

BlogTerrorist said...

Elections and Futures
Plenty of ink has been wasted on the 2004 election in America, and what it portends for our future. Much more won't be wasted here, but it is an opportune topic on which to show how people identify themselves with partisan viewpoints and thus conveniently blind themselves to the actual larger question of leadership. If you think picking Kerry over Bush, or Bush over Kerry, is somehow going to stop the course of decay, or constitutes a decision of any importance, you are assuming that there is a solution within the system itself and are denying its basic unworkability.

Those who own the media and politicians will be glad for such a view, at it supports the current dysfunction and the broken values system behind it which praises "freedom" while allowing an oligarchy motivated by money - not Judaism, not multiculturalism, not a vast right-wing conspiracy - to manipulate you and destroy your future. In this view, you had the sensitivity people, represented by John Kerry, and the aggressive people, represented by George Bush; if you picked one candidate and believed honestly that that would change the nature of the system, or "prevent" a great ill, you are pretending that (a) that there's not much wrong or (b) that there's so much wrong we can do nothing about it.

Such pretense is a justification for inaction that transcends political boundaries. Such an inaction takes this system at face value, and by believing that solutions lie within the options offered, endorses our system as not only workable, but worth supporting! In a larger view, a vote for Bush or for Kerry was a vote for a continuation of a failed system which has been getting increasingly authoritarian through both Republican and Democratic administrations; the system would continue on its course because its power lies in internal division, which conveniently allows vast profits to be made while future problems accumulate - whether you picked Option A or Option B on the ballot.

It is fortunate the George W. Bush won the election.

This is not because he was the best candidate, but because it brought the situation to a peak and demonstrated the failings of this system in its entirety. Bush represents everything that's despicable about America: its religious and "freedom" rhetoric while supporting corrupt allies for the sake of international commerce, which transfers money from our population to investors who have no allegiance to anything productive - they care only about their profit, and how to take it from you. They consider themselves "smart" for doing this, since it is "getting ahead," and being "successful," and damn all who can't see this - they must be stupid.

Neither candidate would have changed anything; it's clear that if Americans weren't rock-ignorant they would have put in votes for Nader, guaranteeing the presence of third parties in a political system that increasingly represents two different views of the same option. However, they listened to their televisions, and out of fear that Bush would win, threw all their support behind Kerry, every bit as much the child of privilege and conniving robber baron that Bush and his family are. Consequently, Bush wins this election, and a democrat the next, and the system continues basically unchanged. Although it is current popular to whine about Bush, keep in mind that he was elected by the majority of the people, and represented little different viewpoint than that of John Kerry.

Imagine that John Kerry won. What would he do that differs from Bush's policy? Not much - Clinton demonstrated the willingness of the left to sign away constitutional "rights" and "freedoms" in favor of national security, and any president that doesn't address the threat of "terrorism" with more draconian measures guarantees his own failure. He can't back out of Iraq without leaving Iraq to collapse; he doesn't want to keep fighting the war; and if he picks a "middle option" of less military involvement, he guarantees a military defeat as well as the collapse of Iraq. He might try to prop up the ailing Social Security program, but, as the wisest economists point out, it's a system dependent on future wage earners making less and paying less to support more people. It is doomed.

So what did John Kerry offer? He's a devout Methodist, remember - but he might patch up some things with Europe. That's great, if we want to drag Europe down into the same morass that afflicts America - why would we want that? He might be more popular worldwide because he's less visibly ignorant, less of an insane warmonger and less of a religious fanatic, but that's conjecture based on the idea that he was opposed to the Iraq war and would sign the Kyoto treaty. As shown above, his options in Iraq are extremely limited; Kyoto is a symbolic gesture, and going beyond it would require that Kerry turn on the corporate interests that helped support him. Not very likely, for a politician.

No, my friends - you aren't children anymore - there are no such easy answers. The disease runs far deeper. Not only does every democracy collapse this way, but your system is motivated by a psychology of masses versus elites that guarantees we all lose, every time. People rail against Bush because it's a popular opinion. Every celebrity repeats it, and your favorite political commentators and entertainers parrot it. It's popular because, like most popular opinions, it claims something vast and important for very little action; it's a "bargain." Bush is the problem, bleat bleat; it's not the downfall of your country because the foundations of its power are corrupt by nature. If we just get rid of the bad apples and "terrorists" - bleat - maybe we can return to enjoying our freedom, our DVDs, our heroin and our hobbies. Wouldn't that be a nice easy vision?

It is however an essentially similar idea to the concept that you can buy a different selection of products than your friends and thus construct a unique identity, or the idea that if you buy a health club membership, you'll automatically start excercising. My friends, there are no such easy answers, and in a society motivated by money, all of your obvious choices will support that system of money. Neither Bush nor Kerry came from anything but a life of luxury and doors opened by whispered names, but - bleat bleat - they're clearly better leaders than Nader. They offer us what American society has always promised, which is "freedom" (yet no one can define it) and the ability to earn as much money as we can stand putting in the boring hours to achieve. American society promises there are no elites, and that we're all "equal," and in that is the disease.

While George W. Bush is a horrible leader, a sociopathic fundamentalist zealot, and makes no illusions about his being in the pocket of large corporations, the problems run deeper. Clinton after all had the same issues, as well as some problems keeping his pants zipped. But you have to ask yourself: what kind of a society keeps pretending this is an operational system? Money drives the world, and so culture and nature and art are ploughed under while products that satisfy the basest of mass appetites make wealth for unscrupulous investors. Since we always need new customers, the society itself keeps expanding. It doesn't end, at least not from its own will; it ends when it collapses into a third-world economy, and those always seem to be run by oligarchies of international investors who buy off local warlords.

Money drives the world - because we cannot agree on a direction, we pick money as something "equal" and "fair" to us all, since the best obviously are the most driven to make tons of money and thus, are suitable as our leaders. It isn't that these people were born of kingly blood, but that they've worked hard and gotten ahead by manipulating the system - by being popular and appealing to the broadest segment of opinion, no matter how ignorant it may be - in healthier times, we called such people prostitutes. It isn't the president that creates the system; he is a creation of the system. If you believe as your controllers wish, you'll think that democracy has been "subverted" but if you read a little history, you will see that all democracies end this way, because the public image requirements of democracy create behind-the-scenes commercial oligarchies.

While we have the ability to fix our society, but perhaps not the democratic system, it is not going to happen by picking Option B over Option A as your vote. Nor can it be helped by making charitable donations to the "right" organizations, nor by becoming an "activist" and staging public protests that no one gives a second thought. It requires something new for the American public, and that's actual political involvement, instead of "supporting" one of the two talking heads and hoping that "the good people" will fix the situation for you. I mean, did you really believe that - are you still children, after all? The oligarchs laugh at you, little sheep, for falling right into their trap, all while congratulating yourselves for voting for the "right" man!

Realizing this cuts to the root of the problem: for centuries our society has been at war with itself, masses versus elites, and it has ended up deciding in favor of the more populous group - the broadest segment of society, who generally have no specific talents or inclinations, but are able to buy products like anyone else and thus, if "empowered," become ideal consumers, because they have no tendency toward higher rationale of purchases. There isn't anything "wrong" with such people, but clearly they're not the right leadership for any society which wishes to rise above its origins. The public ideal that ignorance is better than appearing to be "above" any other citizen allows the oligarchs to manipulate citizens with public image. In life, everything keeps going on a path toward the simplest compromise unless something brighter and more visionary intervenes.

Bush illustrates that the American way of life and political system is incompatible with any values system, as the simplest ideas always triumph, and when your choice of leader is to pick one of two camps of opposing millionaires, there's clearly a fault in the system and not in which candidate you pick. This is a more complex view, and one that doesn't take our system at face value. I am sure you are all smugly disagreeing, congratulating yourselves on knowing the "truth," but perhaps if you think on this you'll see how you've been played for a fool.

Those who are the most smug are the drones, who are happiest with any philosophy that justifies inaction and following the present course of action; these are the underconfident people who want some reason to feel good about themselves, and the idea that we require change and constant development toward new heights of strength and wisdom suggests to the underconfident that something is "wrong" with what they are; these people see only the present moment, and not the bigger picture. Drones love the current society because it gives them a reason to feel good about themselves; after all, we accept everyone as they are, and look at the good things we are doing for others. We feel better when we can reach a hand out to others and help them, as it makes us feel powerful. Who needs that but the underconfident?

And what is the ultimate evil, to a sheep or a drone, except to be beyond the rigid and absolute rules required by underconfident individuals to protect them from criticism and possible defeat? For this reason the rule of the sheep has prevailed in Europe and America, and it has bred people who conform to its rules and expectations, leading to an ongoing decline which no picking of Option A or Option B can stop. Realize that George W. Bush is what he is - the right man, for the right time. But recognize that time for what it is: the final stages of a social decay. This rot comes from our illusory thinking, and makes broken people, and only when we reverse it do we become internally strong enough to have a society worth living in again. What reverses it is a heroic mindset, in contrast to our current passive one.

A heroic mindset places the individual second to what must be achieved so that all may experience its greatness; its opposite is the passive viewpoint, which in adults (although most adults today adopt it) is emasculating. Passive mindsets include the idea of an absolute religious truth, like morality, or an absolute secular truth, such as liberalism; other variations on this are utilitarianism, or the belief that what most people find appealing is the right path for us all, and of course, materialism, or the belief that nothing matters but individual comfort and convenience. A decaying society will be passive, and will not offer you an Option on the ballot to undo its error through a normal election; you will have to "think outside of the box."

The passive mindset is your true enemy, although it may not directly affect you, right now. All declining civilizations have such a passive mindset, because such an outlook is needed to stop increasing the power of a society and to fall back into dividing up the spoils, following social trends and caring about popularity - rising civilizations set aside these temporary delights, and instead look toward achievement as a sense of pride. This is what made all ancient civilizations great, and will be responsible for the rise of any future civilization that is great. Our current society has nothing to say for itself except that it is passive, and pledges not to hurt you, unless you offend its sensibilities, in which case you are "evil."

Television drones pick one option over the other and congratulate themselves on thinking "progressively" or for upholding "what made this country great," but no such simple options await you - Are you still children? Bush is reprehensible, but he is a symptom of the illusory thinking of our decaying civilization. Instead of believing in politics itself, think outside of politics and arm yourself with ideas of a better civilization - in this is the only salvation from the type of dysfunctional options offered by election 2004.


26526.4095713617

BlogTerrorist said...

The Paradox of Individuality:


The roots of modernity stem from the importance placed in the individual above all else. Modern society places emphasis on society as a collection of individuals, rather than on society as a unit of smaller pieces reaching for a goal much as an organism is created out of organs working towards a single goal- sustaining the existence of the whole. Because of this focus on the pieces, fragmented and separated from the whole, consensus can never be achieved, except to the lowest possible values- comfort mainly, as seemingly all other popular values, whether in a physical sense as drives most consumerism, or in a mental sense, as in entertainment and illusions of personal importance, which act to cause the one enjoying them to cease thinking about issues of mortality or accomplishment (or, more specifically, lack thereof).



In order for this happy impotence to continue existing, it requires that every individual be given not only the mental comfort outlined above, but none to excel in any meaningful way, for that would be implying that not everybody is equal, and would shatter the blissful numbness. Echoes of "Brave New World" and "Paradise Lost" should be ringing loudly in the reader's head right now; in guaranteeing comfort and a comfortable self-esteem for all, it stifles all potential towards anything other than mediocrity.



The reason that this goes unnoticed by most people is because of the adornments to one's affectation that this system allows. Every person can choose to put on a different superficial role, their own dysfunction, while acting like everyone else. They can choose to buy the Britney Spears CDs because of their complete faith in blind hedonism to lead them through any situation, or they can buy their favorite album from Linkin Park to demonstrate their unfocused anger. At their root, though, they're engaging in the same action- purchasing a plastic product to demonstrate their "uniqueness" for playing this role, which will be forgotten and thrown away within a few months (popular music aims at expressing nothing other than base, meaningless sentiments, and thus is wholly disposable and similar).



Most people, being unable to create great works or take action towards a cause in any form, love this form of individuality because it allows them to think that they're an individual without having to exert any sort of effort to distance themselves from the norm; it allows them to be equally important to the person who writes great symphonies, or is the greatest warrior, despite their complete lack of distinction. Thus, they create mobs which operate wholly to provide a place for the individual's sense of ego, and harshly attack all that pose some threat to their sense of self importance; which happens to be basically anyone who has some distinction in their merit, rather than the role that they play and call a "personality". Thus, the paradox of individuality is revealed; through holding up the concept of the individual above all else, it forces everyone to be the same, undistinguished person.
47982.7116284633

BlogTerrorist said...

As a boy growing up in Northern Ontario we received enemas as a cure for everything. We had an enema
three times as often as we had an aspirin.

In my later years I began to get erections when the warm soap and water flowed in. I started to think
about giving enemas to others.

As high school football player I had to go to the doctor for a mino operation. It was there that a young
nurse gave me a somewhat unexpected enema. The operation I was scheduled for involved my foot but the
doctor insisted I get a good cleaning out so that I could rest afterward.

The young nurse showed me into a treatment room. Once I was inside the room she told me I was to receive
an enema. I was still fully dressed so I was a little uncomfortable undressing. I had some problems
because my foot was injured. She offered to help. I sat on the table while she grasped my trousers and
began to try to wiggle them off. This was difficult especially since I had an erection by then.

She ignored by bouncing, protruding penis as she removed my pants. I was flushed with embarrassment. I
was happy when she asked me to lie on my side so that she could administer the enema. I could hide my
excitement while she filled a large glass jug with warm, soapy water. She attached the jug to a mount on
the wall.

This enema was different than when mother had administered them. After I was full she told me to hold it
for a few minutes. She proceded to rub my stomach. I was extremely excited by then and our eyes met in
earnest. She told me that she would love an enema as well. I told her that I had learned how to give them
at home.

The nurse then had me evacuate in an ajacent bathroom while I could hear her locking the door. When I
came out, she had started to disrobe. Before I could administer the enema however she wanted to make
love. After we were done making love she received her enema.

I am now married to that nurse and we have an enema bag on the bathroom door for everyone to see. Not all
of our lovemaking sessions include enemas but most of the do and they are among my favorites.
29188.4831061638

BlogTerrorist said...

Modernity
There can be nothing more frustrating than trying to explain something to someone who cannot perceive it. It is not that they will not; if they had that kind of decision on their hands, they could understand. Not did not; they simply lack the ability to, now or forevermore, process the kind of detail required. This type of thinking is not detail-obsessed, but it require that one build a mental picture of the future based on many tiny details, because, and I hope this isn't a news flash, life rarely spells out its plans in big bold letters on the wall in front of you. All myths to the contrary, life is plenty happy to let you wander right up to disaster and linger by it for awhile until, figuring the coast is clear, you take one too many steps and BOOM, it comes crashing down on your ass.

When I tell people that modern society has a great and pervasive disease, the common response is either (a) I don't see it or (b) well, I'm doing okay, so why would I worry? The former is at least honest; the paradoxical bitterness of relativity is that it doesn't excuse one for not seeing the truth, but admits that most people literally have limitations as to how much complexity they can handle, and thus what they can perceive. An idiot sees a house on fire; a genius sees a fire extinguisher in one corner. The second group of people need more analysis, as they claim to have knowledge of impending doom, yet paradoxically, claim it does not affect them. A genius sees a house on fire and gets the fire extinguisher; an idiot simply closes the door to his room - out of sight, out of mind.

So here we are in the world where no one can perceive how deeply screwed things may be. There are thousands of details that must be correlated to see the whole picture. Most people can't drive a car through an intersection in a timely manner, or figure out routine transactions. They are distracted by their own drama, and thus they screw everything up and take forever, then get weepy if confronted. The streets are lined with giant, ugly buildings in which impersonal agencies dole out rigid policies and god help you if you're an exception. Government takes in money and sends out fines and prison sentences for gross violations. Those who are smart avoid the law while ripping people off, legally, and thus have the best of both worlds.

Few notice, but we're steadily consuming more nonrenewable resources. There will be no more gasoline; there's a finite amount. Most people cannot even comprehend that sentence to understand its implications. There is no more land that is going to be created; there is only so much land, and we use more of it each year. Everywhere one looks, the signs are there, if one knows what to look at. Jobs are hilarious shuffling of papers and conning of fellow humans into believing one illusion over the other and, thus approved, transferring one sum of money into another. People live for empty, pointless lives. The highpoint of their day is often television, or consumption of products. Interpersonal relations consist of attacking others and trying to drag them down to make yourself feel better. What kind of life is this?

One thing that astounds any sane observer is how people are isolated mentally in modern society. For example, today I saw some guy in a wheelchair selling candy at an intersection. He'd pull up right beside cars and sell you M

BlogTerrorist said...

Progress versus Getting it Right

A short note on the nature of life: all of what goes on in the human mind is pure creation, construction,
words and symbols and designs used to describe something that exists outside of our minds. That doesn't
mean that it isn't an objectively-functioning world out there; try putting your hand in a moving blender
and you'll see the world is very consistent in its actions. However, this world is sometimes maintained
by some very spacy ideas, like chaos theory or cosmic idealism, and may not even be "real" in any sense
of physical matter existing. However, insofar as events go on in it, it is "real" and you are subject to
the forces of its reality.

Being able to understand both the unreality of life, and its mundane but effective physicality, is the
essence of what is required to be a realist. Realists do not trouble themselves by trying to explain away
reality with bad science or bad religion. They look at the world, take good as well as bad, and adapt.
This is their ultimate game and goal and it makes sense, if one is a complex organism who cares about
function, to take this course of action.

Fools, on the other hand, either deny significance beyond the material, or assert the existence of some
fantasy world that is either more important than reality or "describes" reality in some way that is
assumed to be important. They confuse our evaluation of the world (mind) with its actuality (body), and
thus we call them dualists, a term that in itself is dual: dualists believe in a world beyond this one,
and most commonly construct it along the lines of mind/body separation. Those of us who are realists are
unitivists: we believe the physical world, our minds, and any significance or values abstracted from
those are part of a contiguous, rational system (although not rational in a linear sense).

Because I am a late-night psychopath reader who likes a good story more than the pretentious crap that
passes for literature of late (two exceptions: Tom Wolfe and William Gibson), I found myself digging into
"Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton. Yes, yes, I know, it's garbage - but only on the surface. Crichton's
goal, since the wildly successful "Andromeda Strain" that kept him from having to practice medicine, has
been to wrap a small amount of adventure around a discussion of scientific implications. Unlike most
scientists, with the possible exception of Carl Sagan, Crichton directs his critical eye not toward the
technology itself but toward its meaning via its effect on the world and our lives.

As such, he's both a brutal cynic, and a breathtaking concept writer, in that he grasps exactly what is
scaring us at any given time and explains it in such a way that those of average or higher IQ can
perceive its strengths and dangers. He's good at not becoming a hysterical liberal, but hasn't yet lapsed
into the complacent "as long as the stock market's still up" attitude of most American/English-style
"conservatives." What's great about this book is that he takes issue with modern society's explosion of
technology, and points out that no one considers the consequences.

Ian Malcolm, a (homosexual) British mathematician, is the voice of the author in this work; not only do
quotes from him introduce each chapter, but his lengthy monologues summarize one of the two major topic
areas of this book. The first, obviously, is genetic engineering - bringing an ancient form back to life.
It is counterbalanced by a study of chaos theory, in which Crichton attempts to explain how natural
systems work. The result shows hard science in the grips of forces its unleashers cannot understand,
namely the tendencies of systems to achieve and lose balance, and this metaphor forms the basis of
Crichton's lesson to modern science.

He uses harsh words for recent epochs. Most technical people and scientists are "thintelligent," Malcolm
says, meaning that they can function well in a high-intensity narrow bandwidth of thought, but are lost
to practical implications or systemic thinking. Crichton uses the words linear thinking several times,
and lambasts the west for adopting this form of thought, although he does not trace it to its
Jewish-Christian roots (Crichton grew up in a Jewish neighborhood in NYC, but seems to be a gentile). He
illustrates this crisis several times through the behavior of his characters, who are always just saying
"Well, now our technology is working again" when some dinosaur comes crashing through the wall and eats a
coworker.

It's a form of subtle comedy usually found in horror movies. Crichton makes his points, however, and
since this writing is not here to review the book, let us move on to the next point: Crichton also makes
a classic error of the type made by scientists and not philosophers, and it's nearly unforgivable. He
posits that linear science is "obsolete," and we need to move on, much as we moved on from medieval
times. In this, he reveals his ignorance by adhering to the progressive fallacy.

Espoused by Hegel, lambasted by Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and anyone else with a brain, the progressive
fallacy is that idea that we are always growing toward a "new" higher state of humankind. You can hear
echoes of this in the dumbshits who, if anything is proposed, state they don't want an existing path but
want something "new." It's also found extensively in media and commerce, which benefits quite a bit from
the automatic assumption that of two things, the newer one is better. In a book excoriating linear
science, how about some words for how stupid linear history is?

If one reads widely enough, and deeply enough, it becomes clear that history is linear only insofar as
our measurement of time is (whether time "really is" linear or not is for another debate - we perceive it
as linear; end of story). According to traditionalists and ancient sources, "history" is a process much
like the lives of individuals, by which civilizations are born, grow old and fat, and finally decay into
sordid collapse. Crichton alludes to a scientific version of this philosophy when he notes that
fluctuations in cotton prices over the last century mirror their vicissitudes during the course of an
average day. Why doesn't he again turn his mirror to history?

The answer is that like most of us moderns, he's well-educated in linear thinking in ways even he, not a
dumb man by any stretch, cannot recognize. He's like Hegel: a well-intentioned innocent who needed to be
more warlike and cruel in his thinking, slicing away the ideas that mostly made sense and replacing them
with ideas that always did. The progressive view of history is with us always, whether in television
commercials or political speeches. It's a convenient way of assuming that no one else has seen what we
have, and that we're "unique" in this time - all of which seems to me to be a way of staving off death.

Even if our technology never occurred on earth before, and our societies have encountered configurations
that did not previously exist, when looked at from a higher-level design analysis, nothing that is
happening now has not happened in the past - and the consequences of our now are just as obvious as they
were for past societies. It's another way of saying that, while the scenery might change, the play
doesn't - the emotions and motivations of the actors are as real in one time as in another. Thus what
ancient Greeks observed is still observable and relevant today, as are observations that are much older.

What Crichton bemoans - our tendency to see the world only through the eyes of science, and thus how we
can change raw materials into some kind of product - has its roots in many things. How to explain that?
Quite simply: it's a lower level of thinking than the enlightened thinking required to see what must be
done. When one gets over the linear model of history, and sees past the "progressive" view, it becomes
clear that there are no "new" thoughts, only thoughts in new contexts with varying degrees of correct and
incorrect adaptation to our situation. This is realism, and only in realism do we find an escape from the
twin barriers of materialism and dualistic idealism.

I could wax on with more philosophical terms, but you can look them up - I recommend the Cambridge
Encyclopedia of Philosophy and an Oxford English Dictionary, for starters (if not, there's SEP). At some
point even talking too much on any topic makes it wanking, as one either is able to see the truth of the
situation, or casting around blindly - more of something (experience, wisdom, intelligence, time) is
needed. Part of what Crichton's saying that is also being said in this article is simply that life is
real, and when we make decisions, we should place the airy logic secondary to a practical view of life as
something in which we live.

Crichton points out that we cannot destroy life on earth, which is a way of saying that, no matter how
much humanity screws up, life will come back, although it will not be as developed as as great as what we
have now; it's a backhanded slam at humanity's recklessness. In saying this, he communicates something
important: we should make the right decisions for our own benefit, as right now, we're in a
self-destructive tailspin of bad values. Having now experienced enough of life, both sane (good) and
insane (destructive), I can say that I prefer sane because destructive values always lead to devolution
and thus more boring existences.

Further, if Crichton ever transcends his linear view of history, he'll come upon a great truth of our
world: to live as a Romantic is the only way to live, and if one is a Romantic, one does not hunger for
"new" things, but for what is eternally true. One does not need the "progressive" view of history in
order to realize that a well-fought battle, a lifelong love, a feast of friends, etc. is an eternally
good - sane, adaptive, evolutionary, logical - thing. We rail against "good" and "evil" because they
remove judgment from practicality into some weird abstraction, and from that we get a progressive view of
history, moving from ancient evil to modern good. I wish the dinosaurs would tear that one down and throw
it into the fires, as humanity would be healthier if in its absence it instead focused on reality.

July 17, 2005
18103.4781865419

BlogTerrorist said...

Why choose Satan over Jesus?

Consider- Satan has the traits of a hero. Rather than supinely lie down and accept subservience to another spirit, he followed his own path, that of a leader, even though it was not the sure and easy path. Consider the story of man's fall- Satan gave man knowledge, acting as the christian version of Prometheus. And yet the christians reject him, choosing the one that would keep them comfortably enslaved! And furthermore, they choose him so that when they die, they can live in numb enslavement for eternity!

Now consider- Jesus was an anti-hero. Too weak to exert change on the world himself, he was only able to martyr himself in the ultimate act of passive-agression and let others usurp the power balance. Is it any wonder why he should be rejected?
25306.8787471395

BlogTerrorist said...

Elections and Futures
Plenty of ink has been wasted on the 2004 election in America, and what it portends for our future. Much more won't be wasted here, but it is an opportune topic on which to show how people identify themselves with partisan viewpoints and thus conveniently blind themselves to the actual larger question of leadership. If you think picking Kerry over Bush, or Bush over Kerry, is somehow going to stop the course of decay, or constitutes a decision of any importance, you are assuming that there is a solution within the system itself and are denying its basic unworkability.

Those who own the media and politicians will be glad for such a view, at it supports the current dysfunction and the broken values system behind it which praises "freedom" while allowing an oligarchy motivated by money - not Judaism, not multiculturalism, not a vast right-wing conspiracy - to manipulate you and destroy your future. In this view, you had the sensitivity people, represented by John Kerry, and the aggressive people, represented by George Bush; if you picked one candidate and believed honestly that that would change the nature of the system, or "prevent" a great ill, you are pretending that (a) that there's not much wrong or (b) that there's so much wrong we can do nothing about it.

Such pretense is a justification for inaction that transcends political boundaries. Such an inaction takes this system at face value, and by believing that solutions lie within the options offered, endorses our system as not only workable, but worth supporting! In a larger view, a vote for Bush or for Kerry was a vote for a continuation of a failed system which has been getting increasingly authoritarian through both Republican and Democratic administrations; the system would continue on its course because its power lies in internal division, which conveniently allows vast profits to be made while future problems accumulate - whether you picked Option A or Option B on the ballot.

It is fortunate the George W. Bush won the election.

This is not because he was the best candidate, but because it brought the situation to a peak and demonstrated the failings of this system in its entirety. Bush represents everything that's despicable about America: its religious and "freedom" rhetoric while supporting corrupt allies for the sake of international commerce, which transfers money from our population to investors who have no allegiance to anything productive - they care only about their profit, and how to take it from you. They consider themselves "smart" for doing this, since it is "getting ahead," and being "successful," and damn all who can't see this - they must be stupid.

Neither candidate would have changed anything; it's clear that if Americans weren't rock-ignorant they would have put in votes for Nader, guaranteeing the presence of third parties in a political system that increasingly represents two different views of the same option. However, they listened to their televisions, and out of fear that Bush would win, threw all their support behind Kerry, every bit as much the child of privilege and conniving robber baron that Bush and his family are. Consequently, Bush wins this election, and a democrat the next, and the system continues basically unchanged. Although it is current popular to whine about Bush, keep in mind that he was elected by the majority of the people, and represented little different viewpoint than that of John Kerry.

Imagine that John Kerry won. What would he do that differs from Bush's policy? Not much - Clinton demonstrated the willingness of the left to sign away constitutional "rights" and "freedoms" in favor of national security, and any president that doesn't address the threat of "terrorism" with more draconian measures guarantees his own failure. He can't back out of Iraq without leaving Iraq to collapse; he doesn't want to keep fighting the war; and if he picks a "middle option" of less military involvement, he guarantees a military defeat as well as the collapse of Iraq. He might try to prop up the ailing Social Security program, but, as the wisest economists point out, it's a system dependent on future wage earners making less and paying less to support more people. It is doomed.

So what did John Kerry offer? He's a devout Methodist, remember - but he might patch up some things with Europe. That's great, if we want to drag Europe down into the same morass that afflicts America - why would we want that? He might be more popular worldwide because he's less visibly ignorant, less of an insane warmonger and less of a religious fanatic, but that's conjecture based on the idea that he was opposed to the Iraq war and would sign the Kyoto treaty. As shown above, his options in Iraq are extremely limited; Kyoto is a symbolic gesture, and going beyond it would require that Kerry turn on the corporate interests that helped support him. Not very likely, for a politician.

No, my friends - you aren't children anymore - there are no such easy answers. The disease runs far deeper. Not only does every democracy collapse this way, but your system is motivated by a psychology of masses versus elites that guarantees we all lose, every time. People rail against Bush because it's a popular opinion. Every celebrity repeats it, and your favorite political commentators and entertainers parrot it. It's popular because, like most popular opinions, it claims something vast and important for very little action; it's a "bargain." Bush is the problem, bleat bleat; it's not the downfall of your country because the foundations of its power are corrupt by nature. If we just get rid of the bad apples and "terrorists" - bleat - maybe we can return to enjoying our freedom, our DVDs, our heroin and our hobbies. Wouldn't that be a nice easy vision?

It is however an essentially similar idea to the concept that you can buy a different selection of products than your friends and thus construct a unique identity, or the idea that if you buy a health club membership, you'll automatically start excercising. My friends, there are no such easy answers, and in a society motivated by money, all of your obvious choices will support that system of money. Neither Bush nor Kerry came from anything but a life of luxury and doors opened by whispered names, but - bleat bleat - they're clearly better leaders than Nader. They offer us what American society has always promised, which is "freedom" (yet no one can define it) and the ability to earn as much money as we can stand putting in the boring hours to achieve. American society promises there are no elites, and that we're all "equal," and in that is the disease.

While George W. Bush is a horrible leader, a sociopathic fundamentalist zealot, and makes no illusions about his being in the pocket of large corporations, the problems run deeper. Clinton after all had the same issues, as well as some problems keeping his pants zipped. But you have to ask yourself: what kind of a society keeps pretending this is an operational system? Money drives the world, and so culture and nature and art are ploughed under while products that satisfy the basest of mass appetites make wealth for unscrupulous investors. Since we always need new customers, the society itself keeps expanding. It doesn't end, at least not from its own will; it ends when it collapses into a third-world economy, and those always seem to be run by oligarchies of international investors who buy off local warlords.

Money drives the world - because we cannot agree on a direction, we pick money as something "equal" and "fair" to us all, since the best obviously are the most driven to make tons of money and thus, are suitable as our leaders. It isn't that these people were born of kingly blood, but that they've worked hard and gotten ahead by manipulating the system - by being popular and appealing to the broadest segment of opinion, no matter how ignorant it may be - in healthier times, we called such people prostitutes. It isn't the president that creates the system; he is a creation of the system. If you believe as your controllers wish, you'll think that democracy has been "subverted" but if you read a little history, you will see that all democracies end this way, because the public image requirements of democracy create behind-the-scenes commercial oligarchies.

While we have the ability to fix our society, but perhaps not the democratic system, it is not going to happen by picking Option B over Option A as your vote. Nor can it be helped by making charitable donations to the "right" organizations, nor by becoming an "activist" and staging public protests that no one gives a second thought. It requires something new for the American public, and that's actual political involvement, instead of "supporting" one of the two talking heads and hoping that "the good people" will fix the situation for you. I mean, did you really believe that - are you still children, after all? The oligarchs laugh at you, little sheep, for falling right into their trap, all while congratulating yourselves for voting for the "right" man!

Realizing this cuts to the root of the problem: for centuries our society has been at war with itself, masses versus elites, and it has ended up deciding in favor of the more populous group - the broadest segment of society, who generally have no specific talents or inclinations, but are able to buy products like anyone else and thus, if "empowered," become ideal consumers, because they have no tendency toward higher rationale of purchases. There isn't anything "wrong" with such people, but clearly they're not the right leadership for any society which wishes to rise above its origins. The public ideal that ignorance is better than appearing to be "above" any other citizen allows the oligarchs to manipulate citizens with public image. In life, everything keeps going on a path toward the simplest compromise unless something brighter and more visionary intervenes.

Bush illustrates that the American way of life and political system is incompatible with any values system, as the simplest ideas always triumph, and when your choice of leader is to pick one of two camps of opposing millionaires, there's clearly a fault in the system and not in which candidate you pick. This is a more complex view, and one that doesn't take our system at face value. I am sure you are all smugly disagreeing, congratulating yourselves on knowing the "truth," but perhaps if you think on this you'll see how you've been played for a fool.

Those who are the most smug are the drones, who are happiest with any philosophy that justifies inaction and following the present course of action; these are the underconfident people who want some reason to feel good about themselves, and the idea that we require change and constant development toward new heights of strength and wisdom suggests to the underconfident that something is "wrong" with what they are; these people see only the present moment, and not the bigger picture. Drones love the current society because it gives them a reason to feel good about themselves; after all, we accept everyone as they are, and look at the good things we are doing for others. We feel better when we can reach a hand out to others and help them, as it makes us feel powerful. Who needs that but the underconfident?

And what is the ultimate evil, to a sheep or a drone, except to be beyond the rigid and absolute rules required by underconfident individuals to protect them from criticism and possible defeat? For this reason the rule of the sheep has prevailed in Europe and America, and it has bred people who conform to its rules and expectations, leading to an ongoing decline which no picking of Option A or Option B can stop. Realize that George W. Bush is what he is - the right man, for the right time. But recognize that time for what it is: the final stages of a social decay. This rot comes from our illusory thinking, and makes broken people, and only when we reverse it do we become internally strong enough to have a society worth living in again. What reverses it is a heroic mindset, in contrast to our current passive one.

A heroic mindset places the individual second to what must be achieved so that all may experience its greatness; its opposite is the passive viewpoint, which in adults (although most adults today adopt it) is emasculating. Passive mindsets include the idea of an absolute religious truth, like morality, or an absolute secular truth, such as liberalism; other variations on this are utilitarianism, or the belief that what most people find appealing is the right path for us all, and of course, materialism, or the belief that nothing matters but individual comfort and convenience. A decaying society will be passive, and will not offer you an Option on the ballot to undo its error through a normal election; you will have to "think outside of the box."

The passive mindset is your true enemy, although it may not directly affect you, right now. All declining civilizations have such a passive mindset, because such an outlook is needed to stop increasing the power of a society and to fall back into dividing up the spoils, following social trends and caring about popularity - rising civilizations set aside these temporary delights, and instead look toward achievement as a sense of pride. This is what made all ancient civilizations great, and will be responsible for the rise of any future civilization that is great. Our current society has nothing to say for itself except that it is passive, and pledges not to hurt you, unless you offend its sensibilities, in which case you are "evil."

Television drones pick one option over the other and congratulate themselves on thinking "progressively" or for upholding "what made this country great," but no such simple options await you - Are you still children? Bush is reprehensible, but he is a symptom of the illusory thinking of our decaying civilization. Instead of believing in politics itself, think outside of politics and arm yourself with ideas of a better civilization - in this is the only salvation from the type of dysfunctional options offered by election 2004.


24760.0271300506

BlogTerrorist said...

Postmorality

If there is one thing humanity needs to hear right now, it is this: "Grow up!" However, this is not the
form of maturity of which is commonly spoken, by which they mean a certain docility and resignation that
allows one to call a job and servitude to social prestige a meaningful life. The usage here refers to the
ultimate maturity, which is an ability to accept reality in all of its positive and negative dimensions,
and resolve to act upon it as is necessary.

We could call this ultimate maturity "realism," because when all the semantic arguments are brushed
aside, and all the ontological concerns shown to be aspects of the same question, we realize that most of
human discourse centers on objects of perception without stopping, first, to form a comprehensive system.
Since there is no explanation for our world as a whole, what replaces logic is an ability to analyze
details intently, without ever discovering the interconnection between data.

This basic failing is akin to us as humans selecting to believe only that which originates in a human
mind, and to relegate reality - the interaction of beings, natural forces, and objects in our physical
real-time world - to second-class status. Whether we pick materialism or dualism, both extremes serve us
badly by taking our attention away from an observation of life and pointing it toward arbitrary
linguistic problems that do not necessarily related to reality.

As such, realism is the king of all scientific outlooks, and herein is its paradox: although we all live
in the same world, not all have the fineness of perceptual analysis to understand realism. Most people
not only "would prefer to" cling to stolid absolutes that require no interpretation or context to be
applied, but also cannot conceive of any other form of belief system. It is only in our recent (400
years) mania for new customers to not offend that we have made the presumption that all people, if "given
the same advantages," can understand the same complex thoughts.

Thus we have a troubling situation, onto which another is rapidly piled: a nearly indefinable belief
based upon a reality in which we all live, but which we perceive to different degrees. Luckily, nature
makes this easy for us, and the best-bred among us are the ones who - owing to greater intelligence,
health and moral character - are able to perceive not only what is, in an immediate sense, but its
function, even over time. These are realists who often move to the next level, which is idealism.

Idealism in the vernacular means something different from philosophical idealism; in philosophical
idealism, one suggests that the world is (a) composed of thought or (b) operates in a similar method to
thought; the two are roughly conflatable, in that if the world operates as thoughts, on the high level of
abstraction at which philosophy works, it might as well be thought. Still, even the most spacy of the
idealists affirm realism as the basis for their idealism. How does this work?

What we call science is the process of deducing structural functions to our world, and then using those
to in turn predict responses to certain events or actions. When we understand how our world works
(realism), we can then turn toward the question of its manipulation (idealism), which is subdivided into
questions of how, which relate directly to our degree of realistic perception, and why, which are more
akin to the goal-setting tendencies of idealism. Realism is perception; idealism is a study of design
both in perception and moral action.

Of course, balancing these two ideas is quite a challenge for almost anyone, and only the smarter ones
among us can do it - but among Indo-Europeans, this is not as small of a population as one might think.
Although the dumbest among us make themselves known as the loudest, there is usually a silent group who
function at a high level of efficiency and care deeply about doing the right thing; these however lack
the impetus to draw attention to themselves, as they already understand a spiritual principle by which
self is secondary to whole. These people understand the secret of nihilism.

Unlike most philosophical systems, which are based on achieving an ideal or asserting a value as higher
than others, nihilism is a discipline. It's a way of training your mind to look at the world, and from
it, as in any fully-developed philosophical system, comes an explanation of the entirety of philosophy as
opened for us by the initial realizations of nihilism. Once again, it's not for everyone; if you don't
get it, you might not be ready, and many among us will never be ready, as they literally lack the
circuitry to understand it. Much as you cannot educate a kitchen blender into a supercomputer, you cannot
make a philosophical genius out of the average mind.

Nihilism seems a paradox. It denies all value, thus obliterating the objective/subjective and mind/body
divisions favored by dualists, yet it upholds the idea of abstract structure ("design") behind our
cosmos, as when one denies value one turns to function, specifically function of the physical world. It
is not, however, materialism, as materialism champions a faith that material comfort and individual
survival are the highest goals that exist; most likely, those who are materialists lack the circuitry to
go further. Nihilism is a form of idealism, in that it posits an order to the universe that can be
understood through logic, but rejects value-judgments as a method of doing this; don't categorize and
classify, suggests nihilism, but describe. Describe structure, not physicality or emotionality.

In this we achieve the beginnings of a fully mature philosophy, something akin to the "pragmatic
idealism" Nietzsche described or the pessimistic Hindu-inspired idealism of Schopenhauer; it is
reminiscent of the beliefs of early Greco-Roman civilizations, where the gods personified natural forces
and were beyond any form of "moral judgment," or classification into good and evil. When the ashes settle
over the last thousand years of Western civilization, it will quickly become clear that moral
classification led us to a kind of linear thought that detached us from a study of systemics, and thus
allowed us to do ludicrously destructive things in the name of details - the individual, an absolute
moral principle, or the need to make some cold hard cash.

One of the best aspects of nihilism and cosmic idealism alike is their rejection of absolute moral
judgments, meaning any type of rule that applies without context and to all people alike. The simplest
example is the hypocrisy over murder in the West; we say murder is wrong, and then murder people for
committing murder. A nihilist avoids the initial error by never saying "murder is wrong," but instead,
electing to murder those who threaten whatever values are held dear. A rapid stratification appears among
human beings at this point, because depending on where we are on the intelligence-moral character scale,
we value different things. Those who are at the higher end of such a scale have valuable opinions, and
the rest... should probably be oppressed.

All philosophical concepts are interrelated, and every philosophical system uses a core concept as an
introduction to all other parts of philosophy; if your system is idealism, for example, you translate all
other philosophical questions into idealist vocabulary, and then analyze them and synthesize responses
from that point. A nihilist system is no different. Nihilism is both radically different from
Christianity, but agrees with it on many points, much as it does with Hinduism and other cosmic idealist
systems. If it has an enemy, it would be the lower-level systems, like materialism and superstition,
which rules out Judaism and Voodoo.

However, any good nihilist does apprehend quickly why in ancient societies the principle of karma/caste
was rapidly attached to a postmoral system: if there is no prohibition against killing, one had better
limit that function to those who know enough to handle it. In the same way we do not give firearms to
three-year-olds, certain privileges must be earned by those who show aptitude and character for them. As
most of the questions of philosophy are complicated enough to take a lifetime, ancient societies tended
to breed people for these roles, thus producing the original definition of aristocracy: the
philosopher-kings and warrior-kings who knew how to wield the power they had.

A modern comparison to this is any form of martial art. The students are taught slowly to take on the
powers of a fully capable fighter, so that alongside raw technique they may absorb years of wisdom - and
be sent away by their teachers if they are psychopaths or otherwise defective. Just as one does not teach
post-911 Arab students to take off in planes but not land them, one does not teach nutcases to kill with
a punch. The caste system is part of this karmic order in that it is recognized that, with each advance
in breeding, the design of the next generation changes; those designs are most likely to function as
their ancestors did. As a result, one creates groups like aristocracies which are bred for the finest
traits and pass them along to their offspring.

This system works surprisingly well. Outside of a few defectives, most people have the abilities of their
parents, if developed by education. Even more importantly, they have the moral inclination and traits of
their parents, and therefore make similar types of decisions. The power of nihilism and postmorality in
ancient societies was kept among those who had for generations proven themselves able to wield it; this
is a more effective system than our modern one, which supposes that "anyone" could be effective with this
kind of power, so we give it to them and hope they don't screw up. Remember that during election year.

What we refer to as postmoralism was designed for elites by breeding, as it is a complex system.
Essentially, traditional "Western" (Judeo-Christian) morality is designed around simple rulesets: evil is
bad, murder is evil, therefore if you murder, you are evil and we should murder you. Postmoral tradition,
as mentioned above, does not waste time banning murder. It asks, simply, was the murder fortunate? which
means: did the murder increase the elegance and graceful function of a natural order? If one has murdered
a child molestor, order is increased and made better; if you murder a child who otherwise would likely
done great things, you are probably a psychopath and should be murdered.

In warfare, for example, murder was viewed as glorious in the idealistic tradition, as those who lost
lives had done so in fulfilment of their place in a natural order, and in doing so, had risen a level in
the karmic cycle by not shirking from what must be done. Even more, victims were sacrifices to the gods
of the nature, and had fulfilled their own role; material fortunes came second to spiritual ones (a
complete reversal of the modern logic). One did not weep for a conquered enemy, but sang for the whole of
nature, as in the growth of better people a more logical order was instituted.

Other examples come to mind. Idealists tended to treat their women better than any other group; they gave
them privileges, had laws against their mistreatment, and tended to murder and mutilate those who
committed rape, incest, and assault in peacetime. In war, it was different; rape of a conquered enemy was
viewed as a chance to increase the breeding potential of that tribe, and was thus a joyful occurrence. If
a warrior with IQ of 140 raped a woman with IQ of 85, the logic went, she received an upgrade (payable in
next generation) of some IQ points, thus all was cool. It's important to note, of course, that idealists
did not engage in world wars for economic and political commodities, thus it's impossible to compare
their actions to those of a modern time.

Another example is money. For those who deserved money as a means of achieving their function, it was
viewed as a natural right and something not to be questioned; for those who did not have such a use, it
was seen as suspect to care too much about it. If you have enough to live and retire, what is the need
for desiring more? - they viewed it in the same way our current society views people who spend their
entire income on pornography and lubricant: obsessive. Money was something granted by the gods for a
purpose, not a purpose in itself, as it is in modernity.

Unfortunately, this system was replaced with a one-size-fits-all system, in which postmoral rules cannot
apply, because they must apply to everyone, equally, in order to be "fair." As one might guess, such a
system was not created by the few highly intelligent ones, but by the masses of unstable and
unspecialized people who inherently fear those who might be more capable than they. The masses won by
numbers, and overwhelmed their leaders and aristocracy, and that brought us the downfall of Greece, of
Rome, and the future downfall of America. It also brought us absolute moral judgment and "good"/"evil."

Now that America has run its course, and it has become clear to even liberals that the system is
collapsing under its own weight and paradox, the idea of a postmoral society is again considered. And, as
all concepts are linked, people are again considering the concept of an aristocracy of our most capable
to wield the kind of unfettered power that such a civilization allows. Creating rigid moral rules, and
then having checks and balances on leaders, hasn't worked; not only has corruption flourished, but we've
been unable to make necessary long-term decisions.

While our system is reassuring to those who fear they are inadequate, it has traded sanity for the
accomodation of those who are defective or underperforming, and not surprisingly, the results have been
terrible. This is why humanity needs to "Grow up!" and realize that we're not all equal, and we need some
qualified leaders fast, before we make ourselves miserable and then in short order, exterminate ourselves
and all that we care about. To take that step, we need to go down the winding path from realism to
idealism through nihilism, and in doing so, to cultivate in ourselves a new maturity.
27692.2302515385

BlogTerrorist said...

71091.3599388859

BlogTerrorist said...

One World/Archangel
If you find this human world quite empty, as many do, and see it as the death march that it is, as many do, then whatever part of you has not given up wants to fix these problems, and make something better. This is a natural response to error, but by the nature of time, you recognize quickly that you cannot look toward the problems of today, but that you must look toward creating something for tomorrow which lacks these problems. You must think not in terms of correcting, but redesigning, the world we have now.

Think of it in biological terms. A healthy body does not succumb to disease; it is only when weakened, or old, that it is carried off. Similarly, no society succumbs entirely to outside assault, even by whichever group of parasites seems most likely to do it this week (Masons, Jews, Scientologists, Democrats, Negroes). Our society had to first weaken itself from within before the seeds of collapse could be sowed; for this reason, it is clear that design errors exist. Other observable correlations support this idea.

What this means is that when we speak of change, we cannot speak of fixes to the existing order, but designing a new order; however, our pragmatic minds remind us that this can be done be re-arranging the parts which compose this whole, and orienting them around healthier ideas than those which created the failing design of our present society. We work toward a new order. No single fix or idea can represent this new order. It must represent itself as all things which are not illusion do: by being a body of values which address reality, and find a sensible way of adapting and harmonizing to it, in dramatic contrast to our collapsing civilization built on illusion.

World collapse has been visible for some centuries now, but only to those with the foresight to predict the paths people will take in the grips of its concepts. It is not the concept itself that can be analyzed, in the present tense, but its effects in the coming iterations of its idea, because ideas grow as villages become cities, with each new generation adding its own layer of interpretation and creation to a core concept. To most people, until now, these concepts have been things on paper or in speeches, but now we are seeing not only how they have developed, but what effects they have brought.

In the West, the native ethnic populations of Indo-Europeans are breeding themselves into dysfunction. Those who embrace a world of ten-hour workdays, credit cards and trying not to offend others are well-adapted to a modern society, and breed, but by their nature, these people are not leaders; they are not creators; they are not able to think on the level of the whole. Rather, they succeed because they think only in terms of what is immediately before them, and thus are blithely unconcerned with the apocalyptic nature of the course upon which the West has embarked. It is not that they do not care. They are unable to see what lies ahead, and thus cannot care.

The intelligent are driven mad by this situation, as are those who would make good leaders, and so they tend to suicide or become so socially unacceptable that they do not breed and thus, as part of our society, die out; there are fewer geniuses than, but more "brilliant" people who can do one task well without a thought for its holistic consequences, than ever before. Years of this has weakened our values, and replaced our cultures with television, popular music, movies and the kind of sage wisdom that is necessary to turn off one's mind and focus on making money. After many generations, this consequence has become obvious.

Finally, our industries begin to collapse, having for years made money off of an expanding population of capable people; through several bad breeding practices, these have been replaced with the less competent, and thus the free growth has ended. All the new jobs are for drones, and the opportunities that were once abundant are now concentrated into corporate monopolies that value allegiance more than ability. We have finally taken up the open land, killed off the free-ranging game, and polluted our seas and air to such a degree that we are prisoners in our own technological world. We require its filtered air and water, but even that can't keep out climate change and a lack of natural beauty.

Even worse, our lives are without meaning. There is no community consequence as to what is "good" except obedience to social regulation itself, and therefore there is no way to create something great and have it be praised, since no one recognizes it. There is only serving in schools, jobs, churches, government. As our lives lack any meaning other than comfort and wealth, we have nearly nothing to talk about. There are no heroic goals, except perhaps the creation of an order to replace this antiheroic one. Since we must keep up this happy illusion while denying our deepest-laid problems, we even censor our own thoughts, more effectively than a totalitarian government could.

There is a lack of hope, as well. Most people are drones, so if we develop something exceptional in ourselves, they will at least fail to recognize it, but more likely will detest us for it. Finding people with whom a thinking being could fall in love has become a Holy Grail, one for which most people substitute a compromise, and content themselves with manipulating this person until the inevitable divorce or murder. Changing the system, even for small fixes, requires getting a vast crowd of voters to agree, and that never happens, in the case of complex issues. Depression is so prevalent it has become sublimated, and we cover our vehicles and office cubicles with inspirational slogans.

Such is the face of our reality at this time. When we recognize these factors as a collection, it becomes apparent that our error is fundamental and far-reaching; it is deep within. We are lost. The only glimmer of spirit lies in taking that first precarious step and recognizing this problem, then resolving ourselves to do something about it. In this, we become more cheerful, as there is a thought that it will not always be this way. We even consider the problems that were once invisible to someday be commonplace recognitions of the failure of this time, so that in the future someone might say, "Back then, everyone was depressed because there was no meaning, nothing left to conquer, and we were all tied to one another by a need for self-validation through wealth."

If this writer could convey one thing to you, the reader, it would be to grasp this hope and never let go. Hope should not be passive; when this is called a hope, it is meant as a hope-through-action, or in other terms, a goal. Focus on the future and on what beauty it will bring. Concentrate on how this would be brought about. You feel better already -- ? This alone turns you away from the resignation and boredom of the present time. But here you must be careful.

The tendency in exhausted people is to look for a quick fix, or a single change that will somehow liberate this world. Some find egalitarianism; others find racialism; others find environmentalism, and still others, any number of even more granular issues that can be easily changed, but will offer no change to the whole. Something both more comprehensive, and less dramatic is needed: this new order will be based, as said, upon reality, in contrast to our time based on unreality. For this reason, it is as threatened by the unreality of a single-topic approach in change as it is by the unreality of a stagnant present.

(Words of an Archangel: What we can do now is to establish a comprehensive system of belief, and to work for our own power. Cheer your adversaries, as they make you stronger. Relish victory, but also struggle, and the affirmation of larger dreams. What kind of assertive person would be content with only a career? Higher, bigger, better, more powerful! You can have it all: sustenance, a family, success and a future society that is not so broken. Leave behind your depression and the world opens before you.

It is an eternal truth eternally forgotten that life is basically good, and nothing is yet lost; we are on the downward swing of many centuries of error, but it is better to reign in Hell, than to content oneself with Heaven - a fractured, wrecked, poisoned, and sickening vision that is obviously a fraud to the thinker, but a paradise to the whore and idiot. The signs of ruin are written on the wall; the prophet weeps blood and ocean water; the howls from the forest penetrate even the most solid skyscraper. We are the future. We are victory. If we can concentrate our thoughts, find solutions and then begin applying them, we will build a better system.

There are no Utopias. One would not want them! Nor is there freedom from war, from suffering, from death and from struggle - similarly, we would not want them! What we wish is a chance for greatness, not in the sense of being on Heaven's television network, but in our own hearts and minds, doing what we know to be real, and in sacrifice. Our lives originated in nature, and to natural death we go. All that can give us enjoyment is found in doing what is not "right" in a moral sense, but what is "right" in a natural sense - continuing growth, heroic acts, endless forests, untouched wilderness. This is what our spirits claim!

For now, there is depression enough to cheer a Priest, but to be assertive is to cast off this final slavery, and to attack the world's challenge with all of your might! Poets, write! Musicians, create! You cannot both settle for something mediocre and have enjoyment of life. You must stretch beyond what you know to be yourself, you must exceed what you expect, casting aside the doubt that reigns happily over a humble, resigned and mentally helpless population. We each are the transcendence of that, and a victory for nature in doing so. Cast out from a Heaven of ill creation, we recognize its error, and we cannot - will not - go back; ours is the way of the lonely path.

While some look to the Absolute for a sign, and for approval of their deeds, the independent spirit knows the individual is transitory, as is the universal. There is no determination of life except life itself. All else is error and illusion. Thinking machines like humans become trapped in our own heads, and from this error arises, so we abandon heroism. The opposite is what we should do: we must embrace the world in all of its ugly and beautiful detail. All that we create is ours. Illusion is dying and the world is renewed for us to conquer. Destruction is creation.)

We must convert all of our present ideas, and all of our desires for the coming years, into a single hopeful vision of future. That which exists now can be organized so that its destructive elements are deprecated, and its other elements re-arranged around realistic, idealistic concepts. Those things which hit our personal fear and anger buttons, whether of a political or social nature, must come second to the task of designing a sensible order for the whole. There is one world, and we all live in it; we can create only one order for ourselves, and by doing so, remove our negative influence on this world. The rehabilitation of the West depends on this type of change, and from this renewal can come future creation without the errors that now restrict us.

This alone can be our mantra. There is one reality, and one world - one chance for us to get it right. All that adapts to this world, and recognizes it, and works with what we have is good; all else is error. That which deals in illusion, or singular focus toward unrealistic "idealism" that promises great things but makes us empty inside, is an artifact of the present time and not a direction toward the future. Action is needed, yet it cannot take the same form as our past. Although this seems like more work to accept, it is liberation from the illusion that fogs our brains, and represents a future by which we can as one be healthy again.

74160.8966589626

BlogTerrorist said...

Radical Traditionalism and Nihilism

One lesson we should all learn early in life is that if what you're doing is not working, consider another method. This does not mean at the first sign of negative feedback, give up and do something different; it means that, if over time, what you are doing is not producing the desired results, change strategy. Square peg not fitting in round hole? You may have to think outside of your immediate task (cramming square peg in round hole) to the larger task at hand (which pegs go into which holes). This sounds so basic and fundamental, yet it is forgotten by most.

No clearer example of this can be felt in politics. Extreme leftists rant and cry in public, but in private spend much of their time bemoaning that few are involved, and wondering how to compel people to get involved. Environmentalists are known for being maudlin drunks who break into tears at the thought that most people don't care at all about the environment, with their proof for this supposition being the lack of mainstream involvement in their effete and radicalized groups. Similarly, what's left of conservatism - not bloody much - tends to wring its hands over the absolute disinterest that youth have for the conservative agenda.

Another potent example within politics is white nationalism. The WNs crowd around the fire, proclaim loudly their dogma, and then wait for the crowd to fall into step behind them for the final glorious race war. And why are they still alone, these brave WNs? The answer is quite simple: like liberals, they're a one-note party, and while they understand their own dogma, they don't understand how to apply it. The result is a radicalized, paranoid group of people who have no practical plan, and cannot even organize their own minds in order to organize their own political actions. (There are three real exceptions: Overthrow.com, Vanguard News, and the LNSGP, out of thousands of WN/NS groups.)

From my perspective, it's a pathetic state of affairs that both those who uphold our traditions and those who wish to protect our environment are afflicted by the same mental disease. When one looks at the ideals of environmental and white nationalist groups philosophically, it's clear that they are the two most related forms of belief out there today. Both are preservationists who seek to limit the selfishness agenda of modern society, and replace it not with bureaucracy but with a values system - a values system we share in common, in dramatic contrast to pluralistic systems, where the only shared value is a belief in pluralism. Both of these genres of politics could be easily drawn back from failure if they were willing to acknowledge what they lack.

As said above, it's simple: one has to organize a clear political platform that includes all aspects of the political system, and then organize one's agenda so as to contribute to society while reshaping it into something better. This means that one cannot speak up for green agendas alone, or ethnic preservation agendas (of which white nationalism is one) alone, but one must find some comprehensive way to remake society into something saner. One such method is to re-group white nationalism and environmental protection into the most time-proven system of governance we have, which is described as "tradition" because there is no other word for it. It's a viewpoint that is outside of the modern viewpoint, but since the modern viewpoint could be summarized as cramming square pegs in round holes, we might characterize tradition as a broader mindset in which one can correctly identify what shape of peg goes into what hole.

Tradition refers to the ways in which our societies (in this case, Indo-European; the author is Indo-European) have existed for millennia, and is an all-encompassing viewpoint. It is not just political, or philosophical, or economic, or religious, but all of these. Its genesis is an awareness of humankind's position not in a physical-economic order, but in a cosmic order, or in the patterns of life we find both in nature and in our own minds. In philosophical terms, traditionalism is a form of cosmic idealism, which means that it is a belief system where design-change in the external world (winning a battle, creating an idea, composing a symphony) is more important than personal comfort or survival; cosmic idealism is a dramatic contrast to Judaic moralism, as found in Christianity and liberalism, in which personal comfort and survival are more important than anything else (the one exception being, of course, when one fights for the "right" to live according to Judaic morality, at which point suicide and vengeance are celebrated as positive values).

Radical Traditionalism is a view of tradition from within a modern time. It recognizes that, in order to escape the modern crisis, we must first escape the modern mindset; this is the "radical" part, which means a total divorcing of values and expectations from what modernity has to offer. Radical in this context does not (necessarily) mean extremist action, but it means thought extremely removed from the norm. For most people living in a modern time, the concept of tradition is not one that makes sense on the first read, or the second, but sometime in the days following a reading after those. This is the barrier that radicalism is designed to transcend. As a natural consequence of this, Radical Traditionalist belief may seem "radical" to those in a modern time because it is far beyond what they are trained to comprehend.

Radical Traditionalism is a good solution because, unlike other political agendas which hope to make a few small alterations and then declare victory and go home, Radical Traditionalism recognizes the need to start thinking much differently about how we do things. It would take the entirety of our modern world and remake it into something more sensible, without abandoning our technology (although certainly limiting its use). Furthermore, Radical Traditionalism doesn't confine itself to race, although race is an inseparable part of the ideology. It doesn't confine itself to environmentalism, although concern and nurturing for our environment is an essential part of Radical Traditionalism. It is a holistic philosophy in that it addresses all human endeavors, and does so not from the perspective of the individual or of the collective, but of the whole: it places human individuals, collectives, and even our planet into a greater cosmic order.

This cosmic order, unlike those of humankind, is based upon pre-existing patterns found in nature. It is not arbitrary, like communism, nor of a one-track mind, like capitalism or any other state based on economic competition. It is not founded in the concept of dominion by the self over nature, nor does it pit humanity against its natural world. And, unlike white nationalism, its view of race is flexible; Radical Traditionalists believe races should be preserved, as racial differences are manifestations of a cosmic order called "karma" by some which is a spiritual approximation of what we know as evolution. Unlike moderns, traditionalists see evolution as a two-way street: one can evolve toward something higher, or devolve toward something more base and less noble. Naturally, they see the modern time as an example of the latter, and most credible evidence agrees with them.

Ultimately, however, despite its focus on cosmic ideals, Radical Traditionalism has a big leg over modernity in that it focuses on reality. Not simply physical reality, meaning the tangible things in front of us, but the reality of how our universe and physical environment operates. It doesn't substitute spacy "ideology" for knowledge, and it doesn't sidetrack itself into fighting for equality among people of varied abilities. Modern belief systems tend to take the form of "we should do (action) because (ideal)," but in tradition, the ideal is life itself, and what should be done is what is effective given how this order of life itself operates.

In this, Radical Traditionalism is similar to one type of nihilism. Since the word "nihilism" means different things to different people, it is important to define this type of nihilism as an outlook and a perceptual tool, not a conclusion or an ideal. Those who hold Nothingness up as an ideal, and as an assessment of life itself, are probably better referred to as "fatalists" because they do not believe any value can be found, and therefore believe their choices are irrelevant (a fancy way of giving up). Outlook nihilists believe nihilism is a way of removing illusion and looking into reality itself, from which we are separated by the frailty of (a) our own perception and (b) the errors of our interpretation of external reality. Where conclusion-nihilists take up nihilism as a means of ending further analysis of their existence, outlook nihilists use it as a means to look deeper into existence.

Nihilism of this form could be expressed this way: Upon waking up, I realized that nothing had any inherent value except for its presence as part of reality itself, such as a chair being useful for sitting upon, or food useful for eating because eating prolongs life and thus perception. While I was tempted to stay in this valueless state, I realized that to uphold a valueless state was in itself a value, therefore a valueless state cannot exist for long. For this reason, instead of rejecting reality, I rejected values outside of reality, and now try to see things only for what they are. This is the outlook nihilism of an experienced person.

Fatalism, or conclusion-nihilism, is solely the realm of life's failures. People who cannot make heads or tails of life, and have failed to find a place within it, find refuge in claiming that it never made any sense anyway and therefore they cannot be expected to participate - as if some cosmic parent were watching over them, trying to force them into it. People of this mindset are clearly quite lost, as they have not realized that their lives are their own and exist without need of interpretation, and furthermore, they've lost the ability to see the world beyond their own little existence. It may be that not all of them are stupid - most are simply misguided, and young, and underconfident, if not outright deficient. Those who haven't grown out of fatalism by their thirties are probably mental defectives.

When we look at nihilism and radical traditionalism, what jumps out at us is that both are ways of negating the values we have in a modern time and returning to a cosmic order based on the actual function of our reality. There is no morality in either that places the individual higher than a noble task; the opposite is true, since a nihilist recognizes that morality is not inherent and basically wishful thinking by those who fear they might succumb to violence. Radical Traditionalism, like nihilism, emphasizes a quieting of the internal dialogue over how to value life, and takes life at face value: things are simply what they are.

These forms of thinking are far more advanced than what most believe in a modern time. Most of the trousered apes of modernity have been taught that, thanks to technology and morality, we are slowly leaving a dark age behind and coming into a utopic state. This kind of worldview is called a "progressive" one, in that it believes in progress from a bad state to a good state. Radical Traditionalism and Nihilism shrug aside such concerns by recognizing that the basic dimensions of life remain as they always have been, and no new choices outside of technology have been presented to us. Evolve or devolve. It's all a factor of reality, no matter what moral excuses or numbers on spreadsheets we construct to support our own desires for what reality "should" be.

These beliefs are of the type that will dominate in the future. Humanity has had a thousand year hiatus from reality, first in the form of revolt by the masses, then via religious delusion and Judeo-Christianity, and finally through our economies, free enterprise, suburbs and wealth derived from fossil fuels. However, true to form, the delusional system of modernity brought us to a number of bad mistakes, and the end result has been the squandering of our fossil fuels and continued degeneration of our societies. Therefore, as the illusion ends, we return to common sense. If we want this common sense to succeed, we need holistic ideologies such as Radical Traditionalism and Nihilism to take the place of one-note philosophies like White Nationalism and Environmentalism, as they only increase divisions among us.

June 1, 2005 76923.2062641196

BlogTerrorist said...

How to Become Your Parents

We all know what it is that makes our parents so distinctive: adults are more beaten down than children because they've seen more frustration and hence, written off more avenues of approach in life. We're all familiar with the sayings they have. Don't fight it, go with the flow, it's just how things are. Don't resist, give up, go along, in other words. For this reason, most people have a nagging fear of being "conformist" like their parents.

What your parents are, more than anything else, is practical. They've set aside a few things they can control and written off the rest, knowing - if they're smart - intuitively that things such as democracy, free enterprise, etc. are covers for the vast ongoing kleptocracy of modern government. They no longer have time for ideals because in their experience, every ideal gets dragged down into the same old thing. You can avoid this, if you want to, but it requires thinking outside of what is commonly accepted as an ideal.

It used to be (1960s) that the way to become your parents was to be conservative. If your only values were earning money and going to church, by god, you'd be a parent in no time at all. The reason for this is that conservatism was where the sheep hid back then, because it was the safest ideology. Now the sheep have found an even safer ideology, and that's liberalism, in all of its covert forms - including what passes for "conservatism" today.

The core of liberalism is class warfare, or the ongoing desire to lift up those who are impoverished or oppressed so that there can be social equality. Liberal ideologies from Communism to the Democratic Party to Anarchists to what passes for "Greens" all share this basic thrust. Their fundamental idea is that if we make everyone happy, there will be no strife, and if there's no strife, we will not be personally endangered. And that's where liberal thought ends. It doesn't go on to consider what might make a life meaningful, or make living in a society positive. But it's a perfect ideology for getting along with people.

Think about it. If you encounter people working on your house, bums in the street, impoverished oppressed AIDS patients, etc. you can tell them you're on their side. You believe everyone should have what you do, and as a token of that, you'll hand them a small gift and send them on their way. It's a combination of pacifism, or refusing to fight for what must be done because someone might get hurt, and pity, or finding a way to make others seem puny by giving them things and thus affirming the roles of you as powerful giver and them as weaker receiver. For whatever reason, because it refuses to assert that some ideas are worth fighting for over others, and because it refuses to acknowledge that not all people are equal in ability, liberalism is a very popular belief, even when hidden in a conservative skin in the style of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

However, remember the old adage: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberalism, as good intentions, creates disorder out of society by, instead of putting effort into the growing areas of society, e.g. its excellent people, putting energy into those who are going nowhere and removing any external pressure for them to rise up out of a state of failure. Since liberalism is one of those beliefs composed of moral/ideological projections instead of adaptations to reality, it also puts everyone in spacy cloud-nine fantasyland, where they dream on about how good they are and how the poor are being helped while what they should be focusing on - society as a whole - goes into the toilet. But no one ever got fired for adopting a liberal idea, because if you don't stamp it with allegiance to a certain party (red star), the basic concepts are socially inoffensive. "Sure, I accept every person as my brother or sister."

Liberalism is in fact no different from the conservative Christianity which was the bedrock of conservatism in the 1950s. We fight the Soviets because they don't have "freedom," so what we're doing is morally right. Now we fight "racists" for the same reason, not thinking that perhaps there is no end to this war. But let me share with you a little secret: whether we call it Christianity, or liberalism, or pluralism, or humanism, the simplest way to become a beaten down and submissive droid like your parents is to adopt this viewpoint. The secret is that out of all the beliefs you can potentially adopt, almost all are derived from liberalism, and therefore, basically the same.

Be a hippie or a Republican, an anarchist or a Green, a Libertarian or a Communist. It doesn't matter. You're still upholding the same basic broken belief system that originates in the Jewish idea that morality should preserve the individual at all costs, and avoid personal sacrifice; this is in dramatic contrast to the Indo-Aryan ideal that ideals should be upheld at all costs, as they are the basis of structure in our lives. No matter how much you rebel, with Che Guevara posters on your walls and emo in the CD player, you're still acting through the same tired drama that has torn down every civilization, which is a progressive distancing from reality and regression into the individual.

This type of thinking makes it easy to be beaten down. You can't have any strong opinions, because that would offend someone, and therefore be not only un-liberal but bad for business. You can't desire any change outside that mythological beast known as your "personal life," because that might conflict with someone else's desires - no matter how insane - and thus cause offense and loss of business. Finally, you can't ever suggest that the way we do things - liberalism - is in error, because it's clearly a "good" thing and also a socially-accepted one. Keep these ideas in your head, and soon it won't be worth fighting and you'll give in to the flow. You will have become your parents. 11249.4670912054

BlogTerrorist said...

How do you get a Mexican woman pregnant?
Jizz in her shoes, and let the flies do the rest!

How many Mexicans does it take to grease an axle?
One if you hit 'em just right.

How many Mexicans does it take to grease a combine?
It all depends upon how fast you run them through.

Why is a Spic like a Skunk?
Because they're half black and half white, and smell like shit.

Why doesn't the state of Texas electrocute Mexican prisoners anymore?
Grease fires are too hard to put out.

Why do niggers put their garbage out in clear plastic bags?
So Mexicans can window shop.

What's the difference between a cue ball and an illegal immigrant?
The harder you hit them, the more English you get out of them.

Why don't niggers marry Mexicans?
Their kids would be too lazy to steal!

Why doesn't Mexico ever host the Olympics?
Because all the Mexicans that can run, jump,
and swim are in America already.

What do you call a Mexican without a lawn mower?
Unemployed

There is a Mexican, a nigger and an Asian in a car, who is driving?
The Cop!

Why doesn't Mexico have a NAVY?
Because cardboard don't float.

Why is it wrong to push a car off a cliff with three Mexicans in it? Because you can fit five?

What's a Mexican fortune cookie?
A taco shell with food stamps in it.

Why don't whites throw rocks at Mexican driven cars?
Because it might be theirs.

How many Mexicans can you fit in a Pinto?
20
How do you get them in?
Throw in a five dollar bill.
How do you get them out?
Throw in a job application

What do you call a Mexican baptismal?
Bean dip
What do you call a Mexican being baptized?
Bean dip.
What do you call 5000 Mexican's in a pool?
Bean dip

Why do Mexicans have mustaches?
They want to be like their moms!

Where do u hide cash from a Mexican?
Under the soap!

Why do Mexicans drive low riders?
So they can pick lettuce while they cruise

How do you know how many Mexicans are in a Safeway?
Count the Pintos and multiply by 20.

Why were there only 3000 Mexicans at the Alamo?
They only had 4 cars.

What do you call a Mexican in a two-story house?
Adopted.

Who's the richest person in Mexico?
The one that gets it.....

How do you take a census in Mexico?
Throw in a bar of soap and count the number of people running away.

How do you count the population of Mexico?
Roll a quarter down the street and count the people running after it.

What did the Mexican kid down the block get for his birthday? The bike you threw out 3 weeks ago.

Know why Mexican women wear long dresses?
To hide the bug strips. [Picture]

Why did the Mexicans fight so hard to take the Alamo?
So they could have four clean walls to write on.

Why do Mexican girls wear panties?
To keep their ankles warm.

What's the most confusing day for a Mexican?
Father's Day!

How do you tell a Mexican girl from a Jewish girl?
A Mexican girl's jewelry is fake, but her orgasms are real.

What do you call a pregnant Mexican?
Bean Bag.
What do you call an old Mexican woman?
Bean bag

How many spics does it take to have a bath?
Five, one to lie in the tub and four to spit on him.

Why don't Mexicans play hide and seek?
Because no one will look for them.

Why do Mexicans have re-fried beans?
Have you ever heard of a Mexican doing anything right the first time?

How can you tell a Mexican airline?
It's the one with hair under the wings.

What do you get when you cross a Mexican with an octopus?
I don't know but it sure can pick lettuce.

Why can't spics be firefighters?
They can't tell Jose from hose B.

Q: How do you give a mexican a concussion?
A: Smash his head with the toilet seat while he's drinking.

Q: Why do flies have wings?
A: To beat the mexicans to the trash can.

Q: How many mexican's does it take to grease a car?
A: Just one if you hit him right.

Q: Why did the mexicans have to move out of the house?
A: Because they couldn't figure out how to flush the pool.

Q: How many cops does it take to arrest a mexican?
A: Ten. 1 to hold the mexican, and 9 to hold the oranges.

Q: Why do mexicans buy Cabbage Patch dolls?
A: Because they come with birth certificates.

Q: Why don't mexicans have any Olympic teams?
A: Because all the mexicans who can run, jump, and swim are over here.

Q: Why is there so little great mexican literature?
A: Spray paint wasn't invented until 1950.

Q: Why is the average age of the mexican army 40?
A: Because they take them right out of high school.

Q: What are the three most difficult years in a mexicans life?
A: Second grade.

Q: What do you call a mexican without a lawnmower?
A: Unemployed.

Q: What is a mexican's favorite sport?
A: Boxing... Boxing oranges!

Q: What do you call a building full of mexicans?
A: Jail.

Q: Why did the mexican cross the road?
A: To get from the gas station to the orange groves.

Q: How do you fit 100 mexicans in a phone booth?
A: Throw in a food stamp.

Q: How do you get them out?
A: Throw in a bar of soap.

Q: What do you call a taco with a food stamp inside it?
A: A mexican fortune cookie.

Q: What's the slowest thing in the world?
A: A mexican funeral precession with only 1 set of jumper cables.

Q: Who's the best man at a mexican wedding?
A: The guy with the jumper cables.

Q: Why don't they teach driver's education and sex education on the same day in
Mexico?
A: They don't want to wear out the donkey.

Q: Why do mexicans wear sombreros?
A: So they have a place to put their taco when they are stealing your hubcaps.

Q: Why do mexican's drive lowriders?
A: So they can pick the cabbage.

Q: Why do they have hydraulics?
A: When all the cabbage is gone, they can then pick apples.

Q: What do you say to a mexican in uniform?
A: I'll have a big mac, coke and fries.

Q: What do you call sex with a mexican?
A: Rape.

Q: Why don't mexicans have barbecues?
A: Because the beans keep falling through the Grill!

Q: Why do mexicans have re-fried beans?
A: Have you ever heard of a Mexican doing anything right the first time?

Q: What's the name of Mexico's telephone company?
A: "Taco Bell."

Q: A mexican spent one whole hot day mowing the lawn, why couldn't he go inside the
house and grab a sip of water?
A: It wasn't his house.

Q: Who's the best man at a Mexican wedding?
A: The guy with the jumper cables.

Q: Did you hear about the two mexicans on "That's Incredible"?
A: One had auto insurance and the other was an only child.

Q: Why do mexicans eat beans?
A: So they can have a bubble bath.

Q: How do you know that Superman isn't mexican?
A: Because he would steal wheels off air planes if he was.

Q: Why do most mexican men have mustaches?
A: Because they want to look like their mothers.

Q: How can you tell a mexican airline?
A: It's the one with hair under the wings.

Q: Why don't mexicans like blow jobs?
A: They don't like ANY kind of jobs.

Q: What do you call a mexican with an IQ of 176?
A: A village.

Q: What do you call a mexican paratrooper?
A: Instant air pollution.

Q: How many mexicans does it take to grease a car?
A: Just one if you hit him right.

Q: What do you get when you cross a mexican with an octopus?
A: I don't know but it sure can pick lettuce.

Q: Why are scientists breeding mexicans instead of rats for experiments?
A: They multiply faster and you don't get as attached to them.


There were three construction workers, one was mexican, one was English, and the other
was polish. They were on the high scaffolding of the building they were building, and they
were eating lunch. The Mexican looked in his lunch, and said,"A taco, if I get a taco one
more time I'm going to jump off this building!"
The English guy looked in his lunch, and said,"Crumpets, if I get crumpets one more time
I'm going to jump off this building!"
Then the Polish guy looked in his lunch and said,"Polish sausage, if I get this sausage one
more time I'm going to jump off of this building!"
The next day they all got the same lunch, and they all jumped off the building, and died.
At the funeral the Mexican's wife said,"If he would have told me he didn't want tacos I
would have made him something different."
Then the English guy's wife said,"If he would have told me he didn't want crumpets I
would have made him something else."
Then the Polish guy's wife said,"I don't understand, he made his own lunch."

A Mexican tried to get into the United States. He was stopped at the
border and questioned as to why he wanted in this country and how long
he would stay.
He told them that he wanted to live there and become a citizen. The
officer said, "Okay, if you use yellow, pink, and green in a sentence, I
will let you in."
The Mexican thought and thought. He finally said, "The telephano goes
green, green, green. So I pink it up and say 'yellow'!"

Q: What do you call four Puerto Ricans in quicksand?
A: Quatro cinco

Q: What do you call a Mexican hitchiker ?
A: El Paso

Q: What do you call a Mexican baptism?
A: Bean dip

Q: What's a "feel-up"?
A: It's what you get at a Mexican gas station.

Q: What do you get when you cross an Arab with a Mexican?
A: Oil of Ole'

Q: What do you call a Texan?
A: A Mexican who ran out of gas going to Oklahoma

Ever hear of the redneck who thought that "Manual Labor" was the new
Mexican President?

Q: What is six miles long and moves five miles an hour?
A: A Mexican funeral with only one set of jumper cables

There are two Mexicans are talking. One is a new resident of
the town. The first Mexican says to the other,"Hey, vato, this
town is pretty rough. All the Mexicans know how to fight. So
watch your back."

The other Mexican replies,"I don't need to worry, because I know
Mexican Judo." And the first Mexican asks, "What's Mexican Judo?"
The second says, "Ju don't know if I have a gun; Ju don't know if
i have a knife. . ."

A Russian, a Mexican and a Texan are all sitting around a
campfire.
The Russian pulls out a bottle of Vodka, slams it down, throws
it up in the air and shoots it. He announces to his companions,
"There is plenty of Vodka in Russia."
The Mexican takes out a bottle of Tequila. He slams it, throws
it up in the air and shoots it. He turns to the Russian and
says, "there's plenty of Tequila in Mexico."
The Texan takes his good ole american bottle of beer, slams it
down, throws it up in the air and shoots the Mexican. He turns
to the Russian and says, "there's to many Mexicans in Texas!"

Juan comes up to the Mexican border on his bicycle. He's got two large
bags over his shoulders. The guard stops him and says, "What's in the
bags?"
"Sand," answered Juan.
The guard says, "We'll just see about that. Get off the bike." The guard
takes the bags and rips them apart. He empties them out and finds nothing
in them but sand. He detains Juan overnight and has the sand analyzed,
only to discover that there is nothing but pure sand in the bags.
The guard releases Juan, puts the sand into new bags, hefts them onto the
man's shoulders, and lets him cross the border.
A week later, the same thing happens. The guard asks, "What have you got?"
"Sand," says Juan.
The guard does his thorough examination and discovers that the bags contain
nothing but sand. He gives the sand back to Juan, and Juan crosses the
border on his bicycle.
This sequence of events if repeated every day for three years. Finally,
Juan doesn't show up one day and the guard meets him in a Cantina in
Mexico.
"Hey, Buddy," says the guard, "I know you are smuggling something. It's
driving me crazy. It's all I think about. I can't sleep. Just between you
and me, what are you smuggling?"
Juan sips his beer and says, "Bicycles."

Q: What's the national anthem of Puerto Rico?
A: "Attention K-Mart shoppers..."

Q: What did you name the offspring of a blonde and a Puerto Rican?
A: Retardo.

A high ranking official from the Clinton Administration was invited to
speak at a banquet tendered by the Don Q Rum Corp. in Puerto Rico.
The man delivered his speech nobly, but for one fatal flaw. He persisted in
referring to his hosts as the "makers of that wonderful Bacardi rum."
Every time he mentioned the competing name "Bacardi", an official from
Don Q would jump up and correct him saying, "Don Q, senor, Don Q!"
The smiling Clinton aide would answer, "You're welcome."

Q. What do you get when you cross a mexican and an italian?
A. A guy who makes an offer you can't understand

Q. Why do mexicans have noses?
A. For something to pick in the winter time

Q. Why did they cancel drivers ed. in mexico?
A. The donkey died

Q. What did the mexican do with his first 50 cent piece?
A. He married her

Q. Why do mexicans eat refried beans?
A. Ever see a mexican that didn't screw things up the first time
or
so they can take a bubble bath at night

Q. How many mexicans does it take to grease a car?
A. Just one if you hit him right

Q. What do you get when you cross a mexican with an octopus?
A. I don't know but it sure picks tomatoes

Q. Why are scientists breeding mexicans instead of rats for experiments?
A. They multiply faster and you don't get as attached to them

Q. What do you get when you cross a mexican and a vietnamese?
A. A car thief that can't drive

Q.Did you hear about the two mexicans on that's incredible?
A. One had auto insurance and the other one was an only child

Q: Why did the Mexican throw his wife off the cliff?
A: TEQUILA

-There is an American, a German, and a Mexican.
They are in all in a boat.
The boat is about to sink.
Each of them have to throw things out to make the boat lighter!
The German throws out 4 cases of beer and says:
"We have a lot of bear in Germany so we don't need these!"
The Mexican throws out 5 cases of burritos and says:
"We have a lot of burritos in Mexico so we don't need these!"
The American grabs the Mexican and throws him out.
The German asks why he threw the Mexican out.
And the American replies:
"We have a lot of Mexicans in America so we don't need him!.
-There was a German, an American, and a Mexican.

They were walking in the woods.
Suddenly a heard of buffalo came at them.
They ran and ran until they saw a shack and went in it.
2 days later the buffalo left.
The men got out of the shack only to find layers of crap everywhere!
They were forced to jump in because there was no way out.
The German took a leap and said,
" It's not bad, it's only up to my waist. "
The American took a leap and said,
" It's not bad, it's only up to my knees. "
Then the Mexican took a leap and said,
" It's not bad, it's only up to my ankles. "
The American asked, " How did you do that. "
The Mexican replied in a muffled voice, " I jumped in head first. "

-Why do Mexicans re-fry their beans?
Have you seen a Mexican do anything right the first time?

-Why do Mexicans eat Tomales for Christmas?
So they have something to unwrap

-What are the first three words in every Mexican cookbook?
"Steal a chicken..."

A Britisher, a Frenchman, a Mexican and a Texan were on a small
plane. All of a sudden the engine sputtered and they realized
that they had to lighten the load or else all would die. Only one
could stay on the plane, so they drew straws and the Mexican got
to stay.
The British fellow steps to the door, yells "God save the Queen!"
and jumps out.
The Frenchman goes to the door, places his hat over his heart,
yells "Viva la France!" and jumps out.
The Texan gets up, hollers "Remember the Alamo!" and pushes the
Mexican out.

Q: Why didn't Mexico have an Olympic national team at NAGANO?
A: Because everyone who could run, jump, or swim has already crossed the border.

WHAT DO YOU CALL A MEXICAN WITH A
VASECTOMY?
A dry Martinez.9844.50200048115

BlogTerrorist said...

How do you get a Mexican woman pregnant?
Jizz in her shoes, and let the flies do the rest!

How many Mexicans does it take to grease an axle?
One if you hit 'em just right.

How many Mexicans does it take to grease a combine?
It all depends upon how fast you run them through.

Why is a Spic like a Skunk?
Because they're half black and half white, and smell like shit.

Why doesn't the state of Texas electrocute Mexican prisoners anymore?
Grease fires are too hard to put out.

Why do niggers put their garbage out in clear plastic bags?
So Mexicans can window shop.

What's the difference between a cue ball and an illegal immigrant?
The harder you hit them, the more English you get out of them.

Why don't niggers marry Mexicans?
Their kids would be too lazy to steal!

Why doesn't Mexico ever host the Olympics?
Because all the Mexicans that can run, jump,
and swim are in America already.

What do you call a Mexican without a lawn mower?
Unemployed

There is a Mexican, a nigger and an Asian in a car, who is driving?
The Cop!

Why doesn't Mexico have a NAVY?
Because cardboard don't float.

Why is it wrong to push a car off a cliff with three Mexicans in it? Because you can fit five?

What's a Mexican fortune cookie?
A taco shell with food stamps in it.

Why don't whites throw rocks at Mexican driven cars?
Because it might be theirs.

How many Mexicans can you fit in a Pinto?
20
How do you get them in?
Throw in a five dollar bill.
How do you get them out?
Throw in a job application

What do you call a Mexican baptismal?
Bean dip
What do you call a Mexican being baptized?
Bean dip.
What do you call 5000 Mexican's in a pool?
Bean dip

Why do Mexicans have mustaches?
They want to be like their moms!

Where do u hide cash from a Mexican?
Under the soap!

Why do Mexicans drive low riders?
So they can pick lettuce while they cruise

How do you know how many Mexicans are in a Safeway?
Count the Pintos and multiply by 20.

Why were there only 3000 Mexicans at the Alamo?
They only had 4 cars.

What do you call a Mexican in a two-story house?
Adopted.

Who's the richest person in Mexico?
The one that gets it.....

How do you take a census in Mexico?
Throw in a bar of soap and count the number of people running away.

How do you count the population of Mexico?
Roll a quarter down the street and count the people running after it.

What did the Mexican kid down the block get for his birthday? The bike you threw out 3 weeks ago.

Know why Mexican women wear long dresses?
To hide the bug strips. [Picture]

Why did the Mexicans fight so hard to take the Alamo?
So they could have four clean walls to write on.

Why do Mexican girls wear panties?
To keep their ankles warm.

What's the most confusing day for a Mexican?
Father's Day!

How do you tell a Mexican girl from a Jewish girl?
A Mexican girl's jewelry is fake, but her orgasms are real.

What do you call a pregnant Mexican?
Bean Bag.
What do you call an old Mexican woman?
Bean bag

How many spics does it take to have a bath?
Five, one to lie in the tub and four to spit on him.

Why don't Mexicans play hide and seek?
Because no one will look for them.

Why do Mexicans have re-fried beans?
Have you ever heard of a Mexican doing anything right the first time?

How can you tell a Mexican airline?
It's the one with hair under the wings.

What do you get when you cross a Mexican with an octopus?
I don't know but it sure can pick lettuce.

Why can't spics be firefighters?
They can't tell Jose from hose B.

Q: How do you give a mexican a concussion?
A: Smash his head with the toilet seat while he's drinking.

Q: Why do flies have wings?
A: To beat the mexicans to the trash can.

Q: How many mexican's does it take to grease a car?
A: Just one if you hit him right.

Q: Why did the mexicans have to move out of the house?
A: Because they couldn't figure out how to flush the pool.

Q: How many cops does it take to arrest a mexican?
A: Ten. 1 to hold the mexican, and 9 to hold the oranges.

Q: Why do mexicans buy Cabbage Patch dolls?
A: Because they come with birth certificates.

Q: Why don't mexicans have any Olympic teams?
A: Because all the mexicans who can run, jump, and swim are over here.

Q: Why is there so little great mexican literature?
A: Spray paint wasn't invented until 1950.

Q: Why is the average age of the mexican army 40?
A: Because they take them right out of high school.

Q: What are the three most difficult years in a mexicans life?
A: Second grade.

Q: What do you call a mexican without a lawnmower?
A: Unemployed.

Q: What is a mexican's favorite sport?
A: Boxing... Boxing oranges!

Q: What do you call a building full of mexicans?
A: Jail.

Q: Why did the mexican cross the road?
A: To get from the gas station to the orange groves.

Q: How do you fit 100 mexicans in a phone booth?
A: Throw in a food stamp.

Q: How do you get them out?
A: Throw in a bar of soap.

Q: What do you call a taco with a food stamp inside it?
A: A mexican fortune cookie.

Q: What's the slowest thing in the world?
A: A mexican funeral precession with only 1 set of jumper cables.

Q: Who's the best man at a mexican wedding?
A: The guy with the jumper cables.

Q: Why don't they teach driver's education and sex education on the same day in
Mexico?
A: They don't want to wear out the donkey.

Q: Why do mexicans wear sombreros?
A: So they have a place to put their taco when they are stealing your hubcaps.

Q: Why do mexican's drive lowriders?
A: So they can pick the cabbage.

Q: Why do they have hydraulics?
A: When all the cabbage is gone, they can then pick apples.

Q: What do you say to a mexican in uniform?
A: I'll have a big mac, coke and fries.

Q: What do you call sex with a mexican?
A: Rape.

Q: Why don't mexicans have barbecues?
A: Because the beans keep falling through the Grill!

Q: Why do mexicans have re-fried beans?
A: Have you ever heard of a Mexican doing anything right the first time?

Q: What's the name of Mexico's telephone company?
A: "Taco Bell."

Q: A mexican spent one whole hot day mowing the lawn, why couldn't he go inside the
house and grab a sip of water?
A: It wasn't his house.

Q: Who's the best man at a Mexican wedding?
A: The guy with the jumper cables.

Q: Did you hear about the two mexicans on "That's Incredible"?
A: One had auto insurance and the other was an only child.

Q: Why do mexicans eat beans?
A: So they can have a bubble bath.

Q: How do you know that Superman isn't mexican?
A: Because he would steal wheels off air planes if he was.

Q: Why do most mexican men have mustaches?
A: Because they want to look like their mothers.

Q: How can you tell a mexican airline?
A: It's the one with hair under the wings.

Q: Why don't mexicans like blow jobs?
A: They don't like ANY kind of jobs.

Q: What do you call a mexican with an IQ of 176?
A: A village.

Q: What do you call a mexican paratrooper?
A: Instant air pollution.

Q: How many mexicans does it take to grease a car?
A: Just one if you hit him right.

Q: What do you get when you cross a mexican with an octopus?
A: I don't know but it sure can pick lettuce.

Q: Why are scientists breeding mexicans instead of rats for experiments?
A: They multiply faster and you don't get as attached to them.


There were three construction workers, one was mexican, one was English, and the other
was polish. They were on the high scaffolding of the building they were building, and they
were eating lunch. The Mexican looked in his lunch, and said,"A taco, if I get a taco one
more time I'm going to jump off this building!"
The English guy looked in his lunch, and said,"Crumpets, if I get crumpets one more time
I'm going to jump off this building!"
Then the Polish guy looked in his lunch and said,"Polish sausage, if I get this sausage one
more time I'm going to jump off of this building!"
The next day they all got the same lunch, and they all jumped off the building, and died.
At the funeral the Mexican's wife said,"If he would have told me he didn't want tacos I
would have made him something different."
Then the English guy's wife said,"If he would have told me he didn't want crumpets I
would have made him something else."
Then the Polish guy's wife said,"I don't understand, he made his own lunch."

A Mexican tried to get into the United States. He was stopped at the
border and questioned as to why he wanted in this country and how long
he would stay.
He told them that he wanted to live there and become a citizen. The
officer said, "Okay, if you use yellow, pink, and green in a sentence, I
will let you in."
The Mexican thought and thought. He finally said, "The telephano goes
green, green, green. So I pink it up and say 'yellow'!"

Q: What do you call four Puerto Ricans in quicksand?
A: Quatro cinco

Q: What do you call a Mexican hitchiker ?
A: El Paso

Q: What do you call a Mexican baptism?
A: Bean dip

Q: What's a "feel-up"?
A: It's what you get at a Mexican gas station.

Q: What do you get when you cross an Arab with a Mexican?
A: Oil of Ole'

Q: What do you call a Texan?
A: A Mexican who ran out of gas going to Oklahoma

Ever hear of the redneck who thought that "Manual Labor" was the new
Mexican President?

Q: What is six miles long and moves five miles an hour?
A: A Mexican funeral with only one set of jumper cables

There are two Mexicans are talking. One is a new resident of
the town. The first Mexican says to the other,"Hey, vato, this
town is pretty rough. All the Mexicans know how to fight. So
watch your back."

The other Mexican replies,"I don't need to worry, because I know
Mexican Judo." And the first Mexican asks, "What's Mexican Judo?"
The second says, "Ju don't know if I have a gun; Ju don't know if
i have a knife. . ."

A Russian, a Mexican and a Texan are all sitting around a
campfire.
The Russian pulls out a bottle of Vodka, slams it down, throws
it up in the air and shoots it. He announces to his companions,
"There is plenty of Vodka in Russia."
The Mexican takes out a bottle of Tequila. He slams it, throws
it up in the air and shoots it. He turns to the Russian and
says, "there's plenty of Tequila in Mexico."
The Texan takes his good ole american bottle of beer, slams it
down, throws it up in the air and shoots the Mexican. He turns
to the Russian and says, "there's to many Mexicans in Texas!"

Juan comes up to the Mexican border on his bicycle. He's got two large
bags over his shoulders. The guard stops him and says, "What's in the
bags?"
"Sand," answered Juan.
The guard says, "We'll just see about that. Get off the bike." The guard
takes the bags and rips them apart. He empties them out and finds nothing
in them but sand. He detains Juan overnight and has the sand analyzed,
only to discover that there is nothing but pure sand in the bags.
The guard releases Juan, puts the sand into new bags, hefts them onto the
man's shoulders, and lets him cross the border.
A week later, the same thing happens. The guard asks, "What have you got?"
"Sand," says Juan.
The guard does his thorough examination and discovers that the bags contain
nothing but sand. He gives the sand back to Juan, and Juan crosses the
border on his bicycle.
This sequence of events if repeated every day for three years. Finally,
Juan doesn't show up one day and the guard meets him in a Cantina in
Mexico.
"Hey, Buddy," says the guard, "I know you are smuggling something. It's
driving me crazy. It's all I think about. I can't sleep. Just between you
and me, what are you smuggling?"
Juan sips his beer and says, "Bicycles."

Q: What's the national anthem of Puerto Rico?
A: "Attention K-Mart shoppers..."

Q: What did you name the offspring of a blonde and a Puerto Rican?
A: Retardo.

A high ranking official from the Clinton Administration was invited to
speak at a banquet tendered by the Don Q Rum Corp. in Puerto Rico.
The man delivered his speech nobly, but for one fatal flaw. He persisted in
referring to his hosts as the "makers of that wonderful Bacardi rum."
Every time he mentioned the competing name "Bacardi", an official from
Don Q would jump up and correct him saying, "Don Q, senor, Don Q!"
The smiling Clinton aide would answer, "You're welcome."

Q. What do you get when you cross a mexican and an italian?
A. A guy who makes an offer you can't understand

Q. Why do mexicans have noses?
A. For something to pick in the winter time

Q. Why did they cancel drivers ed. in mexico?
A. The donkey died

Q. What did the mexican do with his first 50 cent piece?
A. He married her

Q. Why do mexicans eat refried beans?
A. Ever see a mexican that didn't screw things up the first time
or
so they can take a bubble bath at night

Q. How many mexicans does it take to grease a car?
A. Just one if you hit him right

Q. What do you get when you cross a mexican with an octopus?
A. I don't know but it sure picks tomatoes

Q. Why are scientists breeding mexicans instead of rats for experiments?
A. They multiply faster and you don't get as attached to them

Q. What do you get when you cross a mexican and a vietnamese?
A. A car thief that can't drive

Q.Did you hear about the two mexicans on that's incredible?
A. One had auto insurance and the other one was an only child

Q: Why did the Mexican throw his wife off the cliff?
A: TEQUILA

-There is an American, a German, and a Mexican.
They are in all in a boat.
The boat is about to sink.
Each of them have to throw things out to make the boat lighter!
The German throws out 4 cases of beer and says:
"We have a lot of bear in Germany so we don't need these!"
The Mexican throws out 5 cases of burritos and says:
"We have a lot of burritos in Mexico so we don't need these!"
The American grabs the Mexican and throws him out.
The German asks why he threw the Mexican out.
And the American replies:
"We have a lot of Mexicans in America so we don't need him!.
-There was a German, an American, and a Mexican.

They were walking in the woods.
Suddenly a heard of buffalo came at them.
They ran and ran until they saw a shack and went in it.
2 days later the buffalo left.
The men got out of the shack only to find layers of crap everywhere!
They were forced to jump in because there was no way out.
The German took a leap and said,
" It's not bad, it's only up to my waist. "
The American took a leap and said,
" It's not bad, it's only up to my knees. "
Then the Mexican took a leap and said,
" It's not bad, it's only up to my ankles. "
The American asked, " How did you do that. "
The Mexican replied in a muffled voice, " I jumped in head first. "

-Why do Mexicans re-fry their beans?
Have you seen a Mexican do anything right the first time?

-Why do Mexicans eat Tomales for Christmas?
So they have something to unwrap

-What are the first three words in every Mexican cookbook?
"Steal a chicken..."

A Britisher, a Frenchman, a Mexican and a Texan were on a small
plane. All of a sudden the engine sputtered and they realized
that they had to lighten the load or else all would die. Only one
could stay on the plane, so they drew straws and the Mexican got
to stay.
The British fellow steps to the door, yells "God save the Queen!"
and jumps out.
The Frenchman goes to the door, places his hat over his heart,
yells "Viva la France!" and jumps out.
The Texan gets up, hollers "Remember the Alamo!" and pushes the
Mexican out.

Q: Why didn't Mexico have an Olympic national team at NAGANO?
A: Because everyone who could run, jump, or swim has already crossed the border.

WHAT DO YOU CALL A MEXICAN WITH A
VASECTOMY?
A dry Martinez.40280.7312969235

BlogTerrorist said...

As a boy growing up in Northern Ontario we received enemas as a cure for everything. We had an enema
three times as often as we had an aspirin.

In my later years I began to get erections when the warm soap and water flowed in. I started to think
about giving enemas to others.

As high school football player I had to go to the doctor for a mino operation. It was there that a young
nurse gave me a somewhat unexpected enema. The operation I was scheduled for involved my foot but the
doctor insisted I get a good cleaning out so that I could rest afterward.

The young nurse showed me into a treatment room. Once I was inside the room she told me I was to receive
an enema. I was still fully dressed so I was a little uncomfortable undressing. I had some problems
because my foot was injured. She offered to help. I sat on the table while she grasped my trousers and
began to try to wiggle them off. This was difficult especially since I had an erection by then.

She ignored by bouncing, protruding penis as she removed my pants. I was flushed with embarrassment. I
was happy when she asked me to lie on my side so that she could administer the enema. I could hide my
excitement while she filled a large glass jug with warm, soapy water. She attached the jug to a mount on
the wall.

This enema was different than when mother had administered them. After I was full she told me to hold it
for a few minutes. She proceded to rub my stomach. I was extremely excited by then and our eyes met in
earnest. She told me that she would love an enema as well. I told her that I had learned how to give them
at home.

The nurse then had me evacuate in an ajacent bathroom while I could hear her locking the door. When I
came out, she had started to disrobe. Before I could administer the enema however she wanted to make
love. After we were done making love she received her enema.

I am now married to that nurse and we have an enema bag on the bathroom door for everyone to see. Not all
of our lovemaking sessions include enemas but most of the do and they are among my favorites.
61359.6629595213

BlogTerrorist said...

How do you get a Mexican woman pregnant?
Jizz in her shoes, and let the flies do the rest!

How many Mexicans does it take to grease an axle?
One if you hit 'em just right.

How many Mexicans does it take to grease a combine?
It all depends upon how fast you run them through.

Why is a Spic like a Skunk?
Because they're half black and half white, and smell like shit.

Why doesn't the state of Texas electrocute Mexican prisoners anymore?
Grease fires are too hard to put out.

Why do niggers put their garbage out in clear plastic bags?
So Mexicans can window shop.

What's the difference between a cue ball and an illegal immigrant?
The harder you hit them, the more English you get out of them.

Why don't niggers marry Mexicans?
Their kids would be too lazy to steal!

Why doesn't Mexico ever host the Olympics?
Because all the Mexicans that can run, jump,
and swim are in America already.

What do you call a Mexican without a lawn mower?
Unemployed

There is a Mexican, a nigger and an Asian in a car, who is driving?
The Cop!

Why doesn't Mexico have a NAVY?
Because cardboard don't float.

Why is it wrong to push a car off a cliff with three Mexicans in it? Because you can fit five?

What's a Mexican fortune cookie?
A taco shell with food stamps in it.

Why don't whites throw rocks at Mexican driven cars?
Because it might be theirs.

How many Mexicans can you fit in a Pinto?
20
How do you get them in?
Throw in a five dollar bill.
How do you get them out?
Throw in a job application

What do you call a Mexican baptismal?
Bean dip
What do you call a Mexican being baptized?
Bean dip.
What do you call 5000 Mexican's in a pool?
Bean dip

Why do Mexicans have mustaches?
They want to be like their moms!

Where do u hide cash from a Mexican?
Under the soap!

Why do Mexicans drive low riders?
So they can pick lettuce while they cruise

How do you know how many Mexicans are in a Safeway?
Count the Pintos and multiply by 20.

Why were there only 3000 Mexicans at the Alamo?
They only had 4 cars.

What do you call a Mexican in a two-story house?
Adopted.

Who's the richest person in Mexico?
The one that gets it.....

How do you take a census in Mexico?
Throw in a bar of soap and count the number of people running away.

How do you count the population of Mexico?
Roll a quarter down the street and count the people running after it.

What did the Mexican kid down the block get for his birthday? The bike you threw out 3 weeks ago.

Know why Mexican women wear long dresses?
To hide the bug strips. [Picture]

Why did the Mexicans fight so hard to take the Alamo?
So they could have four clean walls to write on.

Why do Mexican girls wear panties?
To keep their ankles warm.

What's the most confusing day for a Mexican?
Father's Day!

How do you tell a Mexican girl from a Jewish girl?
A Mexican girl's jewelry is fake, but her orgasms are real.

What do you call a pregnant Mexican?
Bean Bag.
What do you call an old Mexican woman?
Bean bag

How many spics does it take to have a bath?
Five, one to lie in the tub and four to spit on him.

Why don't Mexicans play hide and seek?
Because no one will look for them.

Why do Mexicans have re-fried beans?
Have you ever heard of a Mexican doing anything right the first time?

How can you tell a Mexican airline?
It's the one with hair under the wings.

What do you get when you cross a Mexican with an octopus?
I don't know but it sure can pick lettuce.

Why can't spics be firefighters?
They can't tell Jose from hose B.

Q: How do you give a mexican a concussion?
A: Smash his head with the toilet seat while he's drinking.

Q: Why do flies have wings?
A: To beat the mexicans to the trash can.

Q: How many mexican's does it take to grease a car?
A: Just one if you hit him right.

Q: Why did the mexicans have to move out of the house?
A: Because they couldn't figure out how to flush the pool.

Q: How many cops does it take to arrest a mexican?
A: Ten. 1 to hold the mexican, and 9 to hold the oranges.

Q: Why do mexicans buy Cabbage Patch dolls?
A: Because they come with birth certificates.

Q: Why don't mexicans have any Olympic teams?
A: Because all the mexicans who can run, jump, and swim are over here.

Q: Why is there so little great mexican literature?
A: Spray paint wasn't invented until 1950.

Q: Why is the average age of the mexican army 40?
A: Because they take them right out of high school.

Q: What are the three most difficult years in a mexicans life?
A: Second grade.

Q: What do you call a mexican without a lawnmower?
A: Unemployed.

Q: What is a mexican's favorite sport?
A: Boxing... Boxing oranges!

Q: What do you call a building full of mexicans?
A: Jail.

Q: Why did the mexican cross the road?
A: To get from the gas station to the orange groves.

Q: How do you fit 100 mexicans in a phone booth?
A: Throw in a food stamp.

Q: How do you get them out?
A: Throw in a bar of soap.

Q: What do you call a taco with a food stamp inside it?
A: A mexican fortune cookie.

Q: What's the slowest thing in the world?
A: A mexican funeral precession with only 1 set of jumper cables.

Q: Who's the best man at a mexican wedding?
A: The guy with the jumper cables.

Q: Why don't they teach driver's education and sex education on the same day in
Mexico?
A: They don't want to wear out the donkey.

Q: Why do mexicans wear sombreros?
A: So they have a place to put their taco when they are stealing your hubcaps.

Q: Why do mexican's drive lowriders?
A: So they can pick the cabbage.

Q: Why do they have hydraulics?
A: When all the cabbage is gone, they can then pick apples.

Q: What do you say to a mexican in uniform?
A: I'll have a big mac, coke and fries.

Q: What do you call sex with a mexican?
A: Rape.

Q: Why don't mexicans have barbecues?
A: Because the beans keep falling through the Grill!

Q: Why do mexicans have re-fried beans?
A: Have you ever heard of a Mexican doing anything right the first time?

Q: What's the name of Mexico's telephone company?
A: "Taco Bell."

Q: A mexican spent one whole hot day mowing the lawn, why couldn't he go inside the
house and grab a sip of water?
A: It wasn't his house.

Q: Who's the best man at a Mexican wedding?
A: The guy with the jumper cables.

Q: Did you hear about the two mexicans on "That's Incredible"?
A: One had auto insurance and the other was an only child.

Q: Why do mexicans eat beans?
A: So they can have a bubble bath.

Q: How do you know that Superman isn't mexican?
A: Because he would steal wheels off air planes if he was.

Q: Why do most mexican men have mustaches?
A: Because they want to look like their mothers.

Q: How can you tell a mexican airline?
A: It's the one with hair under the wings.

Q: Why don't mexicans like blow jobs?
A: They don't like ANY kind of jobs.

Q: What do you call a mexican with an IQ of 176?
A: A village.

Q: What do you call a mexican paratrooper?
A: Instant air pollution.

Q: How many mexicans does it take to grease a car?
A: Just one if you hit him right.

Q: What do you get when you cross a mexican with an octopus?
A: I don't know but it sure can pick lettuce.

Q: Why are scientists breeding mexicans instead of rats for experiments?
A: They multiply faster and you don't get as attached to them.


There were three construction workers, one was mexican, one was English, and the other
was polish. They were on the high scaffolding of the building they were building, and they
were eating lunch. The Mexican looked in his lunch, and said,"A taco, if I get a taco one
more time I'm going to jump off this building!"
The English guy looked in his lunch, and said,"Crumpets, if I get crumpets one more time
I'm going to jump off this building!"
Then the Polish guy looked in his lunch and said,"Polish sausage, if I get this sausage one
more time I'm going to jump off of this building!"
The next day they all got the same lunch, and they all jumped off the building, and died.
At the funeral the Mexican's wife said,"If he would have told me he didn't want tacos I
would have made him something different."
Then the English guy's wife said,"If he would have told me he didn't want crumpets I
would have made him something else."
Then the Polish guy's wife said,"I don't understand, he made his own lunch."

A Mexican tried to get into the United States. He was stopped at the
border and questioned as to why he wanted in this country and how long
he would stay.
He told them that he wanted to live there and become a citizen. The
officer said, "Okay, if you use yellow, pink, and green in a sentence, I
will let you in."
The Mexican thought and thought. He finally said, "The telephano goes
green, green, green. So I pink it up and say 'yellow'!"

Q: What do you call four Puerto Ricans in quicksand?
A: Quatro cinco

Q: What do you call a Mexican hitchiker ?
A: El Paso

Q: What do you call a Mexican baptism?
A: Bean dip

Q: What's a "feel-up"?
A: It's what you get at a Mexican gas station.

Q: What do you get when you cross an Arab with a Mexican?
A: Oil of Ole'

Q: What do you call a Texan?
A: A Mexican who ran out of gas going to Oklahoma

Ever hear of the redneck who thought that "Manual Labor" was the new
Mexican President?

Q: What is six miles long and moves five miles an hour?
A: A Mexican funeral with only one set of jumper cables

There are two Mexicans are talking. One is a new resident of
the town. The first Mexican says to the other,"Hey, vato, this
town is pretty rough. All the Mexicans know how to fight. So
watch your back."

The other Mexican replies,"I don't need to worry, because I know
Mexican Judo." And the first Mexican asks, "What's Mexican Judo?"
The second says, "Ju don't know if I have a gun; Ju don't know if
i have a knife. . ."

A Russian, a Mexican and a Texan are all sitting around a
campfire.
The Russian pulls out a bottle of Vodka, slams it down, throws
it up in the air and shoots it. He announces to his companions,
"There is plenty of Vodka in Russia."
The Mexican takes out a bottle of Tequila. He slams it, throws
it up in the air and shoots it. He turns to the Russian and
says, "there's plenty of Tequila in Mexico."
The Texan takes his good ole american bottle of beer, slams it
down, throws it up in the air and shoots the Mexican. He turns
to the Russian and says, "there's to many Mexicans in Texas!"

Juan comes up to the Mexican border on his bicycle. He's got two large
bags over his shoulders. The guard stops him and says, "What's in the
bags?"
"Sand," answered Juan.
The guard says, "We'll just see about that. Get off the bike." The guard
takes the bags and rips them apart. He empties them out and finds nothing
in them but sand. He detains Juan overnight and has the sand analyzed,
only to discover that there is nothing but pure sand in the bags.
The guard releases Juan, puts the sand into new bags, hefts them onto the
man's shoulders, and lets him cross the border.
A week later, the same thing happens. The guard asks, "What have you got?"
"Sand," says Juan.
The guard does his thorough examination and discovers that the bags contain
nothing but sand. He gives the sand back to Juan, and Juan crosses the
border on his bicycle.
This sequence of events if repeated every day for three years. Finally,
Juan doesn't show up one day and the guard meets him in a Cantina in
Mexico.
"Hey, Buddy," says the guard, "I know you are smuggling something. It's
driving me crazy. It's all I think about. I can't sleep. Just between you
and me, what are you smuggling?"
Juan sips his beer and says, "Bicycles."

Q: What's the national anthem of Puerto Rico?
A: "Attention K-Mart shoppers..."

Q: What did you name the offspring of a blonde and a Puerto Rican?
A: Retardo.

A high ranking official from the Clinton Administration was invited to
speak at a banquet tendered by the Don Q Rum Corp. in Puerto Rico.
The man delivered his speech nobly, but for one fatal flaw. He persisted in
referring to his hosts as the "makers of that wonderful Bacardi rum."
Every time he mentioned the competing name "Bacardi", an official from
Don Q would jump up and correct him saying, "Don Q, senor, Don Q!"
The smiling Clinton aide would answer, "You're welcome."

Q. What do you get when you cross a mexican and an italian?
A. A guy who makes an offer you can't understand

Q. Why do mexicans have noses?
A. For something to pick in the winter time

Q. Why did they cancel drivers ed. in mexico?
A. The donkey died

Q. What did the mexican do with his first 50 cent piece?
A. He married her

Q. Why do mexicans eat refried beans?
A. Ever see a mexican that didn't screw things up the first time
or
so they can take a bubble bath at night

Q. How many mexicans does it take to grease a car?
A. Just one if you hit him right

Q. What do you get when you cross a mexican with an octopus?
A. I don't know but it sure picks tomatoes

Q. Why are scientists breeding mexicans instead of rats for experiments?
A. They multiply faster and you don't get as attached to them

Q. What do you get when you cross a mexican and a vietnamese?
A. A car thief that can't drive

Q.Did you hear about the two mexicans on that's incredible?
A. One had auto insurance and the other one was an only child

Q: Why did the Mexican throw his wife off the cliff?
A: TEQUILA

-There is an American, a German, and a Mexican.
They are in all in a boat.
The boat is about to sink.
Each of them have to throw things out to make the boat lighter!
The German throws out 4 cases of beer and says:
"We have a lot of bear in Germany so we don't need these!"
The Mexican throws out 5 cases of burritos and says:
"We have a lot of burritos in Mexico so we don't need these!"
The American grabs the Mexican and throws him out.
The German asks why he threw the Mexican out.
And the American replies:
"We have a lot of Mexicans in America so we don't need him!.
-There was a German, an American, and a Mexican.

They were walking in the woods.
Suddenly a heard of buffalo came at them.
They ran and ran until they saw a shack and went in it.
2 days later the buffalo left.
The men got out of the shack only to find layers of crap everywhere!
They were forced to jump in because there was no way out.
The German took a leap and said,
" It's not bad, it's only up to my waist. "
The American took a leap and said,
" It's not bad, it's only up to my knees. "
Then the Mexican took a leap and said,
" It's not bad, it's only up to my ankles. "
The American asked, " How did you do that. "
The Mexican replied in a muffled voice, " I jumped in head first. "

-Why do Mexicans re-fry their beans?
Have you seen a Mexican do anything right the first time?

-Why do Mexicans eat Tomales for Christmas?
So they have something to unwrap

-What are the first three words in every Mexican cookbook?
"Steal a chicken..."

A Britisher, a Frenchman, a Mexican and a Texan were on a small
plane. All of a sudden the engine sputtered and they realized
that they had to lighten the load or else all would die. Only one
could stay on the plane, so they drew straws and the Mexican got
to stay.
The British fellow steps to the door, yells "God save the Queen!"
and jumps out.
The Frenchman goes to the door, places his hat over his heart,
yells "Viva la France!" and jumps out.
The Texan gets up, hollers "Remember the Alamo!" and pushes the
Mexican out.

Q: Why didn't Mexico have an Olympic national team at NAGANO?
A: Because everyone who could run, jump, or swim has already crossed the border.

WHAT DO YOU CALL A MEXICAN WITH A
VASECTOMY?
A dry Martinez.89258.3116017192

BlogTerrorist said...

Adam Yahiye (Y.A.) Gadahn: An Appeal

This is an open letter to the American people regarding Adam Yahiye Gadahn, and his recent addition to
the terrorist threat list by the FBI. Unlike most of the documents on this site, it is a plea for
"walking around in the other guy's shoes."

I never met Y.A. Gadahn face-to-face, but I knew him through his contributions to my radio show. When I
last spoke to him, back in the 1990s, he created several fliers for the show, and helped out with
numerous music programming suggestions. I remember him as a passionate, courteous, intelligent kid
excited about life, but somewhat cowed by its unnecessary human-induced dark side, thus prone to
listening to lots of quality death metal.

Call it compassion, or call it empathy, but a lot of kids like Y.A. Gadahn resonated with me in spirit.
They came from dark homes where overworked parents (if they were lucky - often a single parent) drove
long hours to labor in the bowels of the city-machine, and came home with no energy for their kids.
Brainless, authoritarian public schools. Neurotic adults who couldn't explain why all of this was
important. An increasingly-restrictive republic whose electorate seemed uninformed as to the actual
issues. A natural world being consumed and turned into strip malls at an alarming rate.

I think this future is what alarms a lot of us, patriotic Americans and al-Qaeda radicals alike. The idea
that maybe we're speeding toward something we can't control, that we can't undo. The thought that as our
obsession with money and power reaches new heights, we'll forget nature, and will also forget there's
another way outside our dark thorny path of righteousness.

I don't believe al-Qaeda is evil, and I don't believe George Bush is illegal. I definitely don't believe
A.Y. Gadahn is "evil," or even ill-intentioned. I think he's a sincere guy like any number of others you
may have grown up next door to, worked a cube over from, spent time guffawing with at a baseball game. I
knew him as a normal kid, with normal desires and normal fears, including a growing dread of what "modern
life" has become.

Because of this, today, I ask for your compassion, and for your consideration of a singular thought: it
could be there are no "good guys" and "bad guys" here, but that we, as a society have lost our way and
need to re-invent our values. Where we once had a goal in overcoming nature, we now have no goals except
those in society itself... money, power, look-at-me social importance.

More than any tangible political goals, I think it's the goal of al-Qaeda and other dissident groups
(including ANUS, the GNAA, and Abrupt) to resist that coming darkness. It might not yet have stamped its
consequences onto our foreheads, but it's like that day in school when your teacher is delayed in
conference and you and your friends spend the first twenty minutes of class raising hell: this can't end
well. Ultimately, there will be a piper to pay.

Your oceans are choked with plastic. Your air, awash in chemicals. Your cities wastelands of crime and
look-a-like plastic storefronts. Your children, alienated and lonely in dysfunctional families, broken
social relationships, and prisonlike schools.

Before you ride another normal guy into the ground so he can be worked over by military intelligence, I
ask you this: consider an option.

Do it for A.Y. Gadahn, or do it for whatever ideals you hold dearest, or do it for yourself, but do it.
Resist. With reason, passion and the knowledge that it doesn't have to be this way.

Sincerely,
Spinoza Ray Prozak
60358.4935575781

BlogTerrorist said...

ANUS hackers devastate crowdist propaganda platforms
"Autonomous" Repeaters of Dogma Retreat

7/26/2005 23:51 PM CST
ANUS News

Despite assurances that the so-called "blogosphere," or network of web logs across the West, is free from
intrusion by established dogma, the majority of blogs unwittingly parrot the doctrine that enables our
society to be the mess that it is. However, in a series of highly-coordinated attacks on Sunday, the ANUS
Infoterror Division struck at the heart of the crowdist decentralized propaganda machine, paralyzing some
of its more newsworthy blogs.

These blogs promoted a devolutionary view of genetics and humanity, subliminally depressing anyone who
came into contact with their neurotic, personally obsessive and solutionless view of history.
Consequently, they like silent cancers worked to destroy all that gives the finer people among us hope,
justifying this constant stream of illusionist propaganda with the notion that not offending society's
lowest members is more important than allowing its highest to reach new altitudes.

ANUS infoterrorist PenisBird struck early in the morning hours, applying his comprehensive knowledge of
scripting to flood crowdist spin-control blogs with meaningless information, as if mocking the brainwash
of meaningless garbage they attempt to stuff into the heads of an unsuspecting populace. After several
rounds of reductive hammering, PenisBird and other infoterrorists were able to not only disable these
blogs, but control many of them.

"On the heels of my semi-victory against racistlosers.blogspot.com, I took on other Blogspot blogs,"
PenisBird wrote on the ANUS messageboard. "It's really easy to find a target. I just open any Slashdot
story with a bunch of comments and search for 'blogspot,'" he said. The ANUS team took only a few hours
to make short work of the weblogs, or "blogs," that in theory provide uncensored and unspun information
as an alternative to mainstream media.

For some years, the American Nihilist Underground Society (ANUS) and its members have recognized that,
whether coming from corporation or government or individual, any rhetoric emerging from modern society
supports the crowdist view. Crowdism favors the undifferentiated individuals of the crowd over any
direction that could possibly offend any of said members, and thus restrains not only proactive handling
of society's problems, but anything which would affirm one member of society as more valuable than any
other, except in the realm of monetary reward, which is equal.

Crowdism as a philosophy has gripped the West for the past millennium, but has begun to show signs of
massive internal failure as a population bred for captivity has experienced as corresponding reduction in
mental capacity and willpower, causing internal decay on all levels of the social system. In contrast to
the form of absolutes that crowdists, who fear death and inequality, require, the nihilists of tomorrow
believe in an idealistic realism which affirms the necessity of applying ascendant ideas within a cosmic
natural order.

The American Nihilist Underground Society, or ANUS, has for over a decade used the Internet to oppose the
ignorance of crowdism through crypto-nihilist messages and activism designed for the few remaining
thinkers in the West to enjoy. Recently, as more people have become dissatisfied with the collapsing
crowdist imposition of absolutist society, organizations such as ANUS have experienced a surge in
membership, much to the dismay of official and unofficial watchers imbued with the illusionary crowdist
philosophy.

About ANUS

The American Nihilist Underground Society advocates nihilism, or a removal of interpretive layers from
our perception of physical reality, as a means of transcending neurotic crowdism and thus achieving
adaptive success. It has been online since 1995 and attracts thousands of readers daily with articles
about philosophy, politics, music and culture. Every major internet filtering service bans anus.com, and
many "anti-hate" organizations decry it as an anti-crowdist site which must be censored and its
perpetrators bankrupted.

http://www.anus.com/

About Nihilism

Nihilism is the belief that nothing we perceive has Absolute value; reality exists, but beyond its
inherent meaning to us as the physical container of our existence, it has no significance outside of what
we perceive. "The world is my representation," indeed. When we strip away all of the values projected
onto physical reality and its outcomes, we are left only with personal ideal and natural ideal, and
bringing the former into adaptation with the latter is the lifetime task to which nihilism is a gateway.

http://www.nihil.org/
668.296806132046

BlogTerrorist said...

Low Biological Quality of Humankind

It's taboo to even mention a range of topics, because they'll make some people feel uncomfortable. Having
seen how well this empire of not offending some people has steered us into an ecocidal evolutionary dead
end, I'm not inclined to care: their empire failed, in a way that ancient civilization and the NSDAP
could not (you'll recall that many great artists are only discovered after life has defeated them and
buried them in pauper's graves; so it will be with tradition).

How did their empire come about? Impetus toward creating civilization was lost, because civilization
itself got wealthy and powerful. The parasites came in, and seduced the women and compassionate men, who
rapidly gave way to "new" ideas (there are no new ideas, only good ones or bad ones; originality is a
separate concept, and applies to how well you describe an idea in art or discourse). These "new" ideas
consisted mainly of vast profit to be made by manipulating hordes of dumber people.

Over time, because the fundamental assumption of these "new" ideas was a lack of responsibility to the
unitive whole of nature and cosmos and humankind, as was provided by the religion-philosophies of ancient
civilizations, these philosophies expanded scope (as all philosophies tend to do; it's a "slippery slope"
argument that applies in every case) and came to include the empowerment of the general masses. This
meant giving them a vote equal to that of people who were smarter, healthier and of better moral
character than they.

Herein was the disaster.

At this point, you have a society which promotes dumb, ugly and destructive people over those who have
more beneficial traits, simply because dumb, ugly and destructive people have a need to disunitively make
profit at the expense of others. Most people who were born into a bad body/mind tend to be destructive,
and if they're smarter than the absolute bottom, they become shrewd because that allows them to be
remarkably intellectually effective - albeit within a narrow and meaningless space. They become experts
at making money, usually through sleazy means, as did the Snopes family in Faulkner's "The Hamlet."

Soon the dumb, ugly and mean guys get the pretty girls, because no matter how disgusting you are as a
person, if you have wealth, well, in a society of equals that's the most important thing, and therefore
you'll be a good parent. Your kids will probably be wealthy too. Over many generations, this equates into
a dying out of the better people and the promotion of the greedy, stupid, violent, etc. In short, it's
counter-evolution, or a destruction of what evolution has done through greed and egoism, which as you can
see are the motivating forces behind "equality."

At this point, most people are of low biological quality, as measured in the three indexes:

# Intelligence. Whether you measure it with an IQ test, or watching them in a revelatory activity,
intelligence can be measured, although you usually have to be at least as intelligent as what you're
measuring to get any kind of exact figure (this explains high school guidance counselors and their
destructive, weird and revengeful decisions, doesn't it?). However, intelligence is an inborn property.
You do not get a genius out of a turnip-picker, no matter what the popular media says. Find some genius
born "magically" to two stupid parents and you'll either find an adoption or a genius grandparent.

# Health and Beauty. People who are well-formed, who are naturally healthy and who tend toward healthy
decisions are usually the most physically able. They may not be great athletes in a specialized sport,
but in terms of general ability to do things like get around and survive in a forest or battle, they're
absolutely qualified (note that many major league players would not qualify, as the history of athletes
in combat bears out). People who are well-bred tend to have health and beauty as well as intelligence and
moral character.

# Moral character. This is a difficult definition, but a good starting point is this: one's natural
inclinations and values are inborn, although they can be changed by post-birth treatment, especially
abuse. These inborn tendencies where they touch on ethical questions form one's moral character. By
moral, I do not mean the binary "don't kill, hurt or offend any person" morality of Judeo-Christianity,
but the holistic morality of the ancients: doing what is right by the order of the cosmos. In some cases
this means killing; in other cases, healing. There is no clear absolute rule for it, and that's why the
ability of the individual to perceive it - this ability varies widely between individuals - is quite
important, and complex enough that it can only be conveyed by years of positive breeding.

When I look around the average American community, there's a very clear low biological intelligence
factor. People waiting in line at McDonalds for twenty minutes, wasting gasoline and paying high prices
for very bad food. People who cannot drive, even though it's a simple process, mainly because their
attention spans wander and they exist in a slow-motion dream of their own distraction. What about all the
true idiots one encounters in offices and stores, who can be guaranteed to miss the obvious and thus take
the long way around to solving any problem, wasting tons of your time?

Even further, look at what people buy. That most people will buy a $3.99 plastic widget instead of a
$5.99 metal one of the same function that will last twice as long shows not only a basic ignorance of
math (6/2 = 3, not 4), but a total lack of moral character, in that they prefer cheap garbage that clogs
landfills to something of enduring presence. Maybe they don't trust themselves not to destroy it? And
what did they spend that "saved" $2 on, anyway? Oh: beer and DVDs.

Something tells me this people will never be appreciating Beethoven, or even Emperor. They aren't going
to read Conrad, or even Crichton. They're never going to see past the lies of Bill Clinton, or of George
Bush. They're consumers, pure and simple, and they cannot appreciate anything subtle in life, or anything
that demands knowledge of structure and not merely external form. Yet we're breeding more of these and
squeezing out the smart people, because even a total fool can narrow his sights on commerce and make a
lot of money in a specific area - and plenty of them do.

Bill Gates, for example, couldn't survive a night in a forest armed with only a pocketknife. Steve Jobs
wouldn't last as long as Bill would. And Paris Hilton? John Kerry? Britney Spears?

We're descending in not only ideology and lifestyle, here on planet earth, but also in terms of
biological quality. We're failing it on the "producing better humans" front, and because so many people
are dumb as rocks and without moral character, we deconstruct and simplify and abstract anything we
write, see, hear, do so that everyone in the room can get it, in the process obliterating meaning for the
few who actually matter.

As our current society begins to fall apart, starting first with its higher functions and moving into all
aspects of its homeostasis, it at the same time confronts some obvious truths that people have been
ducking since the 1950s, namely that pollution, energy depletion, overpopulation and entertainment
culture really do turn us into elaborate hamsters who are guaranteed to die of cancer in some
crime-infested hole of a city. This process has inspired new impulses toward purging the world of waste.

Our best ecological experts, namely the ones who are alert to the full depth of the problem, suggest 500
million people on earth. If we're going to trim back people, when we grow up and get over our pretense,
it makes sense to select the best 500 million by intelligence, health/beauty and moral character, so that
humanity as a whole improves instead of staying at the same level of mediocrity with simply lower
numbers. In this respect, it's fortunate that our society is falling apart, as it gives us a chance to
clear out the dummies and start working toward higher biological quality again.

Interestingly, a eugenic society would require almost no internal changes. If suddenly we moved up a
grade, the people who would be left would use our extant social and political systems for sensible goals,
because there would no longer be hordes of morons to manipulate with demagoguery and fancy products. We
wouldn't even have to change religions, as smart people interpreting Christianity would start it off on a
more realistic, nature-friendly footing.

Now that we've gone so far into the void, it doesn't look like we could come back, but it's entirely
possible we can, especially if our first step is to upgrade our genetics by slaughtering fools, morons,
criminals and other blockheads who impede sensible living for those fortunate enough to be well-bred. I
have a strange feeling that in this future society, there'd be a lot fewer taboos about discussing
intelligence and biological quality of humankind.

July 20, 2005
38093.4741828097

BlogTerrorist said...

LOL @ Terry Schaivo

With Bill O'Reily saying to keep her alive because "a miracle could still happen", people across America asking Fox News how "we can starve her to death when someone starving a dog gets sent to jail", and other such inanities, the thoughts of the common American are obvious- death fear reigns supreme. It's better to live in pointless existence than to end this existence.

Interestingly, many of those for pulling the plug are demonstrating a similar lack of understanding of the state of nothingness by sympathizing with the plight of someone who doesn't know or care about her plight.

Chalk up another victory to "being enlightened"!
69409.7432969099

BlogTerrorist said...

As a boy growing up in Northern Ontario we received enemas as a cure for everything. We had an enema
three times as often as we had an aspirin.

In my later years I began to get erections when the warm soap and water flowed in. I started to think
about giving enemas to others.

As high school football player I had to go to the doctor for a mino operation. It was there that a young
nurse gave me a somewhat unexpected enema. The operation I was scheduled for involved my foot but the
doctor insisted I get a good cleaning out so that I could rest afterward.

The young nurse showed me into a treatment room. Once I was inside the room she told me I was to receive
an enema. I was still fully dressed so I was a little uncomfortable undressing. I had some problems
because my foot was injured. She offered to help. I sat on the table while she grasped my trousers and
began to try to wiggle them off. This was difficult especially since I had an erection by then.

She ignored by bouncing, protruding penis as she removed my pants. I was flushed with embarrassment. I
was happy when she asked me to lie on my side so that she could administer the enema. I could hide my
excitement while she filled a large glass jug with warm, soapy water. She attached the jug to a mount on
the wall.

This enema was different than when mother had administered them. After I was full she told me to hold it
for a few minutes. She proceded to rub my stomach. I was extremely excited by then and our eyes met in
earnest. She told me that she would love an enema as well. I told her that I had learned how to give them
at home.

The nurse then had me evacuate in an ajacent bathroom while I could hear her locking the door. When I
came out, she had started to disrobe. Before I could administer the enema however she wanted to make
love. After we were done making love she received her enema.

I am now married to that nurse and we have an enema bag on the bathroom door for everyone to see. Not all
of our lovemaking sessions include enemas but most of the do and they are among my favorites.
86230.3594507859

BlogTerrorist said...

Ya, sure, I did it and it felt good, wasting a bunch of niggers in school. I also did plenty of nigger-loving race-traitors. The killing seemed so unreal: Wounded black bodies twisted in pain howling in screams for mercy, I soon put them out of their misery.

I Stanford Malicor was born May 16, 1984 in a town of about 30,000 located in Mississippi. I have no brothers or sisters. My mom, Janice, works as a local restaurant as a bartender. She works hard but can be exceptional bitchy at times. My Dad has been a deputy sheriff for about 14 years. He is a good dad and treats me well, when he isn't getting drunk and knocking around mom and me.

Dad was bad but his abuse didn't cause me to dismiss all the niggers in class. My school life had been crap for years: While in the sixth grade, some crypt gang-bangers started to spread rumors that I enjoyed taking dick up the butt. I guess they thought they would get popular by harassing the alleged "school fag."

I got in a fight with a couple of the rumor spreading niggers but the stories grew worse. My next five years of school was filled with nearly constant mental abuse and the daily ritual of beatings from the chimpmen gangs. I sure the hell didn't want to pack some butt, but the facts didn't matter to the niggers.

Sometimes I prayed for death.

As a cop, dad loved to collect all types of cool weapons. He took me shooting many times; I learned to respect the power of a gun. Dad kept all the stuff in two gun safes in our basement.

It was so cool, my dad had all that good cop stuff: handguns, assault-rifles, shotguns, teargas canisters, etc... Dad's friends on the force had nicknamed him "Officer Rambo". The weapons were always kept locked up and only dad had the key. It was no big deal that we owned guns: we lived in a area where everyone enjoyed firearms.

Few knew that my dad was also a high ranking member in the Almira Knights of The KKK. Dad had no love for niggers but he had to act like it and he played the part very well, when he wasn't beating up niggers for resisting arrest.

I never before considered killing anything or anyone until we got a DBS TV system at home and I started watching CNN. TV news showed me the quickest way to fame: pull the trigger on some subhuman students that deserved to die. Waste yourself a bunch of scumbags and you are instantly a TV celebrity. As time passed I continued to intensely study the reports of school shootings. looking for the best plan: the most kills with the least risk.

The abuse at school was becoming intolerable, the niggers refined torture into a fine art. I sentenced the black bastards to death and started making plans to kill them all.

I still needed a whole lot of guns to accomplish the goal but dad kept the firearms locked up all the time. It took some careful planning, but I did score; I switched dad's gun safe key with a look alike key Sunday morning as he was passed out from the usual vodka binge.

Later that evening, I hid the guns in a ravine next to the school.

Monday was like any other day except that some stoned sambo kicked me in the balls, it didn't hurt much, guess I was getting used to it.

Before 5th period was over I ran from my last class with my teacher screaming "Where are you going?" Quickly I sprinted to my guns stash and began arming. I recovered my dad's M-16 assault-rifle and snapped in a full 120 round drum magazine. I also put on a load bearing vest stuffed with three thirty round magazines and a loaded handgun.

Finally, I put on a backpack containing three recently assembled pipe bombs, wrapped in nails and coated in poison. Nice and deadly surprises for any unlucky soul that got between me and my targets.

I had a copy of the terrorists handbook printed out from the internet. Thanks to the Almira Public Library's free internet computers for the public, I know how to build the most lethal of destructive devices.

Running at full speed while loaded down with gear was quite difficult. I was very careful not to be seen until it was too late for the coons. The plan was to attack just right after school, when all the niggers were getting out of class. The moment of vengeance was at hand!

As the bell ringed the monkeys came out. I ran from my hiding place, holding the M-16 at hip level, and positioned myself in front of the sub-human trash. It was time to send these niggers back to hell from where they came. I held down the trigger and sprayed full-auto hollow-point bullets into the black mass.

I can remember the overwhelming rush of pleasure as the first africans were ripped apart. It felt like I was in A theatre watching, in slow motion, a movie of myself making many bodies.

It was grand: all the niggers in front of me screamed and dropped like flies. Those who could, ran back into school with a horrified look of terror on their faces. I stopped shooting, just for a second, because I just had to laugh. All the pain and misery these inferiors had caused me and I was returning it back to them! I squeezed the trigger again and finished off the few nigs who were still alive. Blood from the dead sambos begin flowing into a storm drain as I emptied the drum magazine.

I then reloaded with a 30round banana clip, it was time to move my killing party elsewhere. Leaving the screaming wounded, and the silent dead, I proceeded into the school to shoot any black bastards I could find. For the first time in my life I was truly alive!

The teachers were hiding inside various classrooms like scared rats but it made little difference. My constant assault-rifle fire found human targets.

Black or white didn't matter. These teaching fools had for years poisoned the minds white kids with their diversity race-mixing bullshit. Time for the white race-traitors to die also.

What a pleasure it was killing these people! In the past the faculty had ignored the abuse. Afraid of being labeled "racist" the teachers usually let the niggers run free, like the animals they are, and the whites were the victims.

The air then filled with the sounds of sirens as the cop cars got closer. It was time to move. I proceeded to quench the nearly white hot M-16 machinegun barrel in the vagina of my wounded black English teacher. That sure was more fun than diagramming sentences.

Discarding the M-16, I grabbed my pipe bombs and handgun to waste the pigs.

I waited in ambush behind a blood drenched shrub as three coppers pulled up in their shiny cars. The first car exploded in a ball of fire as an accurately tossed a pipe bomb landed underneath the car, igniting the gas tank. The concussion from the blast knocked me to the ground.

I next shot a nigger piggy in the head with my dad's backup service revolver, while the apeman lay wounded from the pipe bomb blast. However the third piggy was stubborn coonboy and he took my last two pipe bombs to finish off.

It was time to cruise, I ran to my stashed motorcycle and got the hell out of there. While driving off I could still hear the shattered screams of dieing niggers twisting in the grass.

All together it was a great day of racial purifications!

That was the most fun I ever had and hope that other White Power kids get even. Their is no better feeling in the world than spraying lead into a nigger or race-traitor who deserves it, it is a far better choice than suicide!34148.6447488648

BlogTerrorist said...

LOL @ Terry Schaivo

With Bill O'Reily saying to keep her alive because "a miracle could still happen", people across America asking Fox News how "we can starve her to death when someone starving a dog gets sent to jail", and other such inanities, the thoughts of the common American are obvious- death fear reigns supreme. It's better to live in pointless existence than to end this existence.

Interestingly, many of those for pulling the plug are demonstrating a similar lack of understanding of the state of nothingness by sympathizing with the plight of someone who doesn't know or care about her plight.

Chalk up another victory to "being enlightened"!
61254.0004482604

BlogTerrorist said...

23673.7253839489

BlogTerrorist said...

What do you call African engineering?
A Nigger-rig!

What is the best way to blow a gang-nigger?
Pack his fat lips full of gunpowder and light his AFRO on fire!

How do you tell if a gangbanger is well hung?
When you can't get more than two fingers between the rope and it's neck.

What do you get when you cross a nigger and a gorilla?
A real stupid gorilla!

How do you stop 5 niggers from raping a white woman?
Toss the apes a basketball or shoot them!

Why are all niggers so fast?
Because all the slow ones are in jail.

Why did they only count 500,000 niggers at the million man march?
Forgot to look in the trees.

What do niggers and apples have in common?
Both look dammed good hanging from trees!

What's the difference between dog shit and niggers?
When dog shit gets old it turns White and quits stinking.

What do you call a nigger in a tree with a briefcase?
Branch manager.

How do you stop a nigger from drowning?
Take your foot off the back of his head.

What do you get when you cross a retard with a gang banger?
Someone who spray paints on a chain link fence.

Why do niggers stink?
So blind people can hate them too.

What do you get when you cross a nigger and a spic?
Someone too lazy to steal.

Why don't niggers take aspirin?
They refuse to pick the cotton out.

What do nigger kids get for Christmas?
Your bike.

Why don't nigger kids play in the sandbox?
Cats keep covering them up.

What do you call an apartment full of niggers?
A COON-dominium.

Why do niggers keep chickens in their back yards?
To teach their kids how to walk.

How do you know Adam and Eve were not black?
You ever try to take a rib from a nigger?

What is a nigger?
Proof that skunks fuck monkeys.

What do you call an Ethiopian with a pickle on his head?
A quarter-pounder.

What do you get when you cross a nigger and a chink?
A ape that eats a hell of a lot of rice.

How do you get 20 niggers into the backseat of a Yugo?
Toss in a welfare check!

What is always the best way to look at a gangster nigger?
Through a rifle scope!

What was missing from the million man march? 30 miles of chain and an auctioneer.

How do u save a drowning nigger?
You don't.

What do u throw a drowning nigger?
Wife and kids.

How do u drown a nigger?
Pop his lip.

Why do niggers have upturned pig noses?
That�s where God held them when he painted them.

Why are their no niggers in the cartoon the Flintstones?
Because they were still monkeys at that time.

What do you get when you cross a nigger and a wetback?
A monkey that speaks spanish.

Why did the nigger cross the road?
To sell crack to the children at the other school.

What did the 13 yr. old nigger whore say while screwing?
Get off me daddy your crushing my cigarettes!

Why do gangbangers call European-Americans whitey?
Because that�s the last sound they hear as whitey runs them over!

What do you get when you cross a nigger and a jew?
A mulatto conman.

Whats the difference between good niggers and bad niggers?
Good niggers are locked up in the medium security prison.

What�s a real good way to kill a nigger?
Toss a bucket of chicken into the middle of the freeway!

Why did God give niggers big dicks?
As a way to say "sorry" for putting pubes on their heads! -igor

Why do niggers wear wide brimmed hats?
So birds won't shit on their lips!

Why was white chocolate invented?
So nigger kids could get messy too!

What do you call a niggers car?
A 'blood vessel'.


What do you call 1,000 niggers going down a hill?
A mudslide!

What do Nikes and the KKK have in common?
They both make niggers run fast!

Why is there no black Miss America pageant?
Nobody want's to be Ms. Idaho!

What do you get when you cross a nigger and a gorilla?
A dumb gorilla!

What do you call a nigger having sex?
Rape!

How many polacks does it take to clean a bathroom?
None, it's a niggers job!

White folks aren't racist . .
. . we've all got colored TV's!

Why do niggers hate asperin?
Because it's white and it works!

A nigger walks into a bar and says, "Yo! Where do all the homies hang?". The bartender says, "out there", pointing to a tree in the back.

What do you call an Ethiopian on a hunger strike?
An Ethiopian!

How many niggers does it take a shingle a roof?
It depends how thin you slice them!

How do you get a nigger out of a tree?
Cut the rope!

Why don't nigger babies play in sandboxes?
Cats keep trying to bury them!

What do you call 60,000 niggers on a plane heading back to Africa?
A good start!

What do you call a nigger hiding in the woods?
A brown recluse!

What do you call a black bowling ball?
A nigger egg.

What did God say when he made the first nigger?
Oops! I put the pubes on his head!

What was missing from the Million Man March?
About a thousand miles of chain and an auctioneer!

What do Confederates do on the New Year?
Shoot niggers with roman candles and throw Confetti!

How do you get a nigger to wear a condom?
Put a Nike logo on it!

How do you keep a nigger bitch pleased?
Give her some fried chicken!

What happened when the Nigger looked up his family tree?
A gorilla shat on his face!

What do you call a busload of niggers going off a cliff
with one empty seat?
A crying shame!

What do you call 1,000 niggers at the bottom of the sea?
A good start!

What did God say when he made the first nigger?
Oops! Burnt another one!

Why haven't any niggers died from West Nile virus?
Mosquitos don't land on shit, only flies do!

How do you stop a nigger from going out?
Use more napalm!

What�s the best way to keep gangbangers out of your backyard?
Hang one in the front yard!

What do you get when you cross a nigger and a faggot?
African shitdick.



What should you do if you accidentally run over a nigger?
Throw the truck into reverse!

How many niggers does it take to roof a house?
8 if you cut the apes just right!

Why do whites shop at nigger yard sales?
To get back their possessions.

What is the safest place to be during a nigger-riot?
At work because Niggers are lazy!

What do you call 4 niggers at the bottom of the ocean?
Pollution!

What do you call 40,000 niggers at the bottom of the ocean?
solution!

How many Ethiopians can you fit in a phone booth?
All of them.

How do you start a foot race in Ethiopia?
Roll a doughnut down the street.

How many niggers does it take to pave a driveway?
One if you spread him real thin.

When does a Black man turn into a nigger?
As soon as he leaves the room.

What do you call a nigger with a Harvard education?
Nigger.

Why don't nigger women wear panties to picnics?
To keep the flies off the chicken.

Why does Alabama have niggers and California have earthquakes?
California got first pick.

Did you hear that the KKK bought the movie rights to Roots?
They're going to play it backwards so it has a happy ending.

What is the difference between a white owl and a black owl?
A white owl goes, "Who, who," a black owl goes, "Who dat? Who dat?"

Did you hear about the new Black Barbie?
It comes with 12 kids, AIDS and a welfare check.

What is black, white, and rolls off the end of the pier?
A nigger and a seagull fighting over a chicken wing.

Why do niggers walk the way they do?
Because they spent the first nine months of their lives
dodging a coat hanger.

Do you remember the nigger family on the Jetsons? No?
The future looks pretty good!

Did you hear about the nigger that thought he was bleeding to death?
Turns out he just had diarrhea.

What do you call two nigger cops on motorcycles?
Chocolate chips.

Why don't niggers celebrate Thanksgiving?
KFC isn't open on holidays.

Why do niggers like basket ball?
It involves running, shooting and stealing.

What has four legs and a black arm?
A happy pitbull.

How do you know if a nigger is well hung?
If you can't fit your finger between his neck and the noose.

How is a nigger like a broken gun?
It doesn't work and you can't fire it.

What do you call 5 niggers hanging from a tree?
A Mississippi wind chime.

Why did the nigger cross the road?
Who the fuck cares why is he out of the cotton field?

What do you call a white man surrounded by 100 niggers?
Warden.

Do you know why flies have wings?
So they can get away from the niggers.

How do you baby-sit a baby nigger?
Wet the animals lips and stick it to a window!

How many niggers does it take to screw in a light bulb?
One to hold it in the socket and wait for the world to revolve around him.

What do you get when you cross a nigger and a indian?
An Alcoholic chimp.

What is tattooed inside every niggers lip?
inflate to 80 P.S.I.!

What is the difference between an old nigger bitch and a elephant?
About twenty pounds!

What do you call a nigger with a peg leg?
Shit on a stick! -joe

Why do niggers always have sex on their minds?
Because they have pubes on their heads! -Bo

What does Pontiac stand for?
Pool Old Nigger Thinks It's A Cadillac!

Did you hear the one about . .
. . the baby nigger who went to heaven and got his wings? He said, "God! Look! I'm an angel!", and God said, "No you stupid nigger! You're a bat, now eff off!"

I like black people . . .
. . I used to have some black friends 'till my dad sold them!

What does a nigress and an ice hockey player have in common?
They both change their pads after 3 periods! -ashmoor

Why do black people have white hands?
They were up against the wall when God spray painted them!

Why do black people have white hands?
Everyone has some good in them!

Why do black people have white hands?
It rubs off the cop cars!

Why do more niggers get hit by cars in the winter?
They're easier to spot!

What do you call two blacks on one bike?
Organized crime!

Why are niggers getting stronger?
T.V.s are getting bigger!

What happened to the nigger who had an abortion?
Crime Stoppers sent her a check for $500! -tim

Why don't nigger bitchs wear panties to picnics?
To keep the flies away from the chicken! -michael

What's the difference between a truck full of baby niggers and a truck full of bowling balls?
You can't unload a truck full of bowling balls with a pitchfork!

What does FUBU stand for?
Farmers Used to Buy Us

What does FUBU stand for?
Farmers Used to Beat Us

Why don't sharks eat niggers?
They think its whale shit!

Why do niggers call white people "honkies"?
Thats the last sound they hear before they get hit! -davey

What do they do with dead niggers in California?
Gut them to make wetsuits!

Why does L.A. have so many fags and N.Y. so many niggers?
L.A. had first choice!

What do you call a chinese nigger with AIDS?
Coon Die Soon

What does NAACP stand for?
Niggers Against All Caucasian People

What does NAACP stand for?
Now Apes Are Called People -Brando

Why do police dogs lick their asses so much?
To get the taste of nigger out of their mouths!

What do niggers say while having sex?
If you�s scream white bitch I�s kill ya!



What is the difference between a nigger and a snow tire?
Snow tires don�t sing when you slap the chains on them.

What do you call a nigger with a I.Q. of 15?
Gifted.

A nigger with a I.Q. of 150?
Tribe.

What�s the definition of the great American dream?
All the niggers go back to Africa with a mexican and a jew under each arm.

What do you call 100 parachuting niggers?
Skeet!

What's the difference between a truckload of nigger babies and a truckload of bowling balls?
You can't unload the bowling balls with a pitchfork!

What�s black, tan, brown and red?
My Doberman chewing up a gangbanger.

Why did all the niggers really die in Vietnam?
When the Sergeant said: "get down!" The niggers started to dance.

What's green, pink and purple and orange?
A nigger all dressed up for church!

How do you tell that a nigger was shot in the head?
By the hole in his ghetto-blaster!

How many men does it take to carry a niggers coffin?
Eight, six to carry the coffin and two to carry the ghetto-blaster!

Why did the ape commit suicide?
He heard that he might have evolved from a nigger!

How do you get the gangbanger out of a tree?
cut the rope!

What do the skins and steroids have in common?
Both make niggers run real fast!

What do you say to a nigger in a three piece suit?
"Will the defendant please rise."

What is the difference between a dead dog in the road and a dead gangbanger?
Skid marks in front of the dog; burn out patch in front of the gangbanger!

Why did "Wacko Jacko" go to Kmart?
Because he heard that little boys pants were half off!

What do you call one white guy surrounded by three niggers?
Victim!

Why don�t sharks attack niggers?
Sharks think that niggers are whale shit!

How was break dancing first invented?
Little gang-niggers trying to steal hubcaps off moving cars!

How many gang-bangers does it take to paint a wall?
One if you throw the monkey hard enough!

What's the best way to starve a nigger?
Hide the monkeys food stamps under his work boots!

What do you call a unborn baby nigger?
Janitor in a can!

Why did god give niggers rhythm?
Because he fucked up their hair, nose and lips.

Why are so many niggers moving to Detroit?
They heard there were no jobs there.

Why can't nigger women become nuns?
Because they can't get used to saying 'superior' after 'Mother'.

How do you fit 15 niggers in the back of a Cadillac?
Don't worry, they'll figure it out.

What's yellow and black and makes you laugh ?
A bus full of niggers going over a cliff.

Why are niggers always buried 12 feet deep?
Deep down they're good people.

What's the difference between a porch monkey and a yard ape?
The length of the chain.

What's black, orange, and very pretty?
A nigger on fire.

How does the navy use niggers?
They debone them and use them as wetsuits.

What does Pontiac stand for?
Poor Old Niggers Think Its A Cadillac.

What is the primary reason for the US prison system?
Nigger control! 71263.4676143407

BlogTerrorist said...

ANUS hackers devastate crowdist propaganda platforms
"Autonomous" Repeaters of Dogma Retreat

7/26/2005 23:51 PM CST
ANUS News

Despite assurances that the so-called "blogosphere," or network of web logs across the West, is free from
intrusion by established dogma, the majority of blogs unwittingly parrot the doctrine that enables our
society to be the mess that it is. However, in a series of highly-coordinated attacks on Sunday, the ANUS
Infoterror Division struck at the heart of the crowdist decentralized propaganda machine, paralyzing some
of its more newsworthy blogs.

These blogs promoted a devolutionary view of genetics and humanity, subliminally depressing anyone who
came into contact with their neurotic, personally obsessive and solutionless view of history.
Consequently, they like silent cancers worked to destroy all that gives the finer people among us hope,
justifying this constant stream of illusionist propaganda with the notion that not offending society's
lowest members is more important than allowing its highest to reach new altitudes.

ANUS infoterrorist PenisBird struck early in the morning hours, applying his comprehensive knowledge of
scripting to flood crowdist spin-control blogs with meaningless information, as if mocking the brainwash
of meaningless garbage they attempt to stuff into the heads of an unsuspecting populace. After several
rounds of reductive hammering, PenisBird and other infoterrorists were able to not only disable these
blogs, but control many of them.

"On the heels of my semi-victory against racistlosers.blogspot.com, I took on other Blogspot blogs,"
PenisBird wrote on the ANUS messageboard. "It's really easy to find a target. I just open any Slashdot
story with a bunch of comments and search for 'blogspot,'" he said. The ANUS team took only a few hours
to make short work of the weblogs, or "blogs," that in theory provide uncensored and unspun information
as an alternative to mainstream media.

For some years, the American Nihilist Underground Society (ANUS) and its members have recognized that,
whether coming from corporation or government or individual, any rhetoric emerging from modern society
supports the crowdist view. Crowdism favors the undifferentiated individuals of the crowd over any
direction that could possibly offend any of said members, and thus restrains not only proactive handling
of society's problems, but anything which would affirm one member of society as more valuable than any
other, except in the realm of monetary reward, which is equal.

Crowdism as a philosophy has gripped the West for the past millennium, but has begun to show signs of
massive internal failure as a population bred for captivity has experienced as corresponding reduction in
mental capacity and willpower, causing internal decay on all levels of the social system. In contrast to
the form of absolutes that crowdists, who fear death and inequality, require, the nihilists of tomorrow
believe in an idealistic realism which affirms the necessity of applying ascendant ideas within a cosmic
natural order.

The American Nihilist Underground Society, or ANUS, has for over a decade used the Internet to oppose the
ignorance of crowdism through crypto-nihilist messages and activism designed for the few remaining
thinkers in the West to enjoy. Recently, as more people have become dissatisfied with the collapsing
crowdist imposition of absolutist society, organizations such as ANUS have experienced a surge in
membership, much to the dismay of official and unofficial watchers imbued with the illusionary crowdist
philosophy.

About ANUS

The American Nihilist Underground Society advocates nihilism, or a removal of interpretive layers from
our perception of physical reality, as a means of transcending neurotic crowdism and thus achieving
adaptive success. It has been online since 1995 and attracts thousands of readers daily with articles
about philosophy, politics, music and culture. Every major internet filtering service bans anus.com, and
many "anti-hate" organizations decry it as an anti-crowdist site which must be censored and its
perpetrators bankrupted.

http://www.anus.com/

About Nihilism

Nihilism is the belief that nothing we perceive has Absolute value; reality exists, but beyond its
inherent meaning to us as the physical container of our existence, it has no significance outside of what
we perceive. "The world is my representation," indeed. When we strip away all of the values projected
onto physical reality and its outcomes, we are left only with personal ideal and natural ideal, and
bringing the former into adaptation with the latter is the lifetime task to which nihilism is a gateway.

http://www.nihil.org/
18845.1371237498

BlogTerrorist said...

Your uncle is a bar of soap, your cousin is a lampshade
Your best friend is a candle, and you're a fucking jew
Your neighbors are a landfill, too bad you got away
But all the jews that didn't have rotted in the lime pits
50 years later, you've still got an agenda
For world domination, but you'd better think again
To when we had the upper hand, der furher had control
You kikes were in the cattle cars, then shoved into an oven...
Think of all the friends and family you lost...


Happy Hanukaust!


You claim six million, i wish it were true
But you're a pack of lying fucking jews
A holocaust memorial is built on the land
Where most of your relatives are buried in the sand
In bulldozed graves to cover the pollution...
Too bad you weren't part of the final solution
Wearing long sleeves to cover your tattoo
Will never hide the fact that you're a dirty jew
Think of all the friends and family you lost...


Happy Hanukaust!


Light the menorah and think of the time
When you sold out your neighbors for a handful of dimes
All those filthy jews... they must have been pissed,
They couldn't buy their way onto Schindler's list
Think of all the friends and family you lost...


Happy Hanukaust!
8802.70144242509

BlogTerrorist said...

Why choose Satan over Jesus?

Consider- Satan has the traits of a hero. Rather than supinely lie down and accept subservience to another spirit, he followed his own path, that of a leader, even though it was not the sure and easy path. Consider the story of man's fall- Satan gave man knowledge, acting as the christian version of Prometheus. And yet the christians reject him, choosing the one that would keep them comfortably enslaved! And furthermore, they choose him so that when they die, they can live in numb enslavement for eternity!

Now consider- Jesus was an anti-hero. Too weak to exert change on the world himself, he was only able to martyr himself in the ultimate act of passive-agression and let others usurp the power balance. Is it any wonder why he should be rejected?
89271.8695290883

BlogTerrorist said...

The Paradox of Individuality:


The roots of modernity stem from the importance placed in the individual above all else. Modern society places emphasis on society as a collection of individuals, rather than on society as a unit of smaller pieces reaching for a goal much as an organism is created out of organs working towards a single goal- sustaining the existence of the whole. Because of this focus on the pieces, fragmented and separated from the whole, consensus can never be achieved, except to the lowest possible values- comfort mainly, as seemingly all other popular values, whether in a physical sense as drives most consumerism, or in a mental sense, as in entertainment and illusions of personal importance, which act to cause the one enjoying them to cease thinking about issues of mortality or accomplishment (or, more specifically, lack thereof).



In order for this happy impotence to continue existing, it requires that every individual be given not only the mental comfort outlined above, but none to excel in any meaningful way, for that would be implying that not everybody is equal, and would shatter the blissful numbness. Echoes of "Brave New World" and "Paradise Lost" should be ringing loudly in the reader's head right now; in guaranteeing comfort and a comfortable self-esteem for all, it stifles all potential towards anything other than mediocrity.



The reason that this goes unnoticed by most people is because of the adornments to one's affectation that this system allows. Every person can choose to put on a different superficial role, their own dysfunction, while acting like everyone else. They can choose to buy the Britney Spears CDs because of their complete faith in blind hedonism to lead them through any situation, or they can buy their favorite album from Linkin Park to demonstrate their unfocused anger. At their root, though, they're engaging in the same action- purchasing a plastic product to demonstrate their "uniqueness" for playing this role, which will be forgotten and thrown away within a few months (popular music aims at expressing nothing other than base, meaningless sentiments, and thus is wholly disposable and similar).



Most people, being unable to create great works or take action towards a cause in any form, love this form of individuality because it allows them to think that they're an individual without having to exert any sort of effort to distance themselves from the norm; it allows them to be equally important to the person who writes great symphonies, or is the greatest warrior, despite their complete lack of distinction. Thus, they create mobs which operate wholly to provide a place for the individual's sense of ego, and harshly attack all that pose some threat to their sense of self importance; which happens to be basically anyone who has some distinction in their merit, rather than the role that they play and call a "personality". Thus, the paradox of individuality is revealed; through holding up the concept of the individual above all else, it forces everyone to be the same, undistinguished person.
58839.880098924

BlogTerrorist said...

Groupthink
Language knows no master. If ever a definitive description of life and the best philosophies possible in it will be written, the people who come after will know how to subvert it: they will, starting from the smallest and working up to the grandest, redefine its words to mean something convenient for their own beliefs; they will bend the belief system toward their own by changing the simple equivalencies of terms. As a result, it will become its own opposite, over time, although the fundamental structure will remain.

A term that became popular in the last decade is "groupthink," referring to the social animal herd-tendency which causes people to bleat out dogma without having any idea of how to understand it. Like most pop-culture diagnoses, it favors an us/them approach which makes everyone in the room feel that, by comprehending the term, they have somehow surpassed all the others, and thus have found a new level of understanding. Yet even the term carries a weight of irony, in that not only can it be misinterpreted, but it can be a form of what it describes, by the very nature of this inclusive, devotional, just-sign-here access to what is perceived as absolute truth.

One seemingly ugly reality that confronts us as developed and not nascent beings is that in order to have civilization, or any kind of belief system, most of the people who work within that group have to be thinking on the same page. Of course, popular literature and movies find this appalling, since what happens to individuality? they cry. The grim face of it is that individuality as an absolute doesn't exist, in the sense that each person would be entirely a creation of their own impulse; this is bad math, which has an equation defining itself without reliance on its starting data or even on mathematics itself. This bad math holds that we are each self-creating gods, having no origin and no reality to which our ideas correspond, and that it's most important that we define ourselves apart from all others. Reality contradicts this.

In reality - that distant place where, when the ego-games of youth and pretense of adulthood are spent - we confront the actual mechanisms that sustain our world, and subsume our "it oughtta be this way" rhetoric to practical, this-is-how-we-survive concerns, for any consensus to exist there must be some degree of similar thinking. Obviously, there will always be critics who point to that and scream "groupthink!" and thus run off smugly congratulating themselves for being different and not falling into the herd, when they have no answers for what must be done as a collective, and thus are in denial of reality itself. This doesn't concern them - their whole agenda, literally, is to make themselves look good and thus to get ahead socially and politically. Obviously, these people are death for us all.

So some degree of group agreement is necessary, but is there a danger of groupthink as well? Certainly, and we cannot see it more clearly than in the Marxist and Rightist groups of today. These are composed of parrots, who rehash the same dogma in new forms but accept it unquestioningly and repeat it. There's a danger in that, in that these people do not understand what they parrot. In most cases, this isn't a problem, since most people lack the aptitude or dedication required to understand politics. When leaders succumb to this, however, a certain kind of spiritual death occurs, but even more importantly, a real-world crisis is engendered: they are no longer testing their ideas against reality, but are constructing castles in the sky and pointing to them saying, "well, it oughtta be" - this is the essence of academic Utopianism, and in the only view of history that matters, that which is measured over millennia and not decades, it is a form of calcification that might appear to be as lively and free-spirited as something else.

Critics - or those who passively point and try to tear down ideas, without suggesting anything to replace them except the airy dogma described above - are notorious for pointing out such groupthink, such conformity, and by finding it in some who uphold an idea using it to "discredit" that idea. Without individuality, they proclaim, there is nothing except groupthink, and therefore the whole concept reeks of submission and conformity, they argue, and therefore should be forgotten. They have forgotten however what philosophers have long learned, which is that any philosophy must pass its own tests. The finger pointers who scream "groupthink!," have, paradoxically, succumbed to groupthink itself by finding in anything but absolute granularity a viable solution.

Granularity is like group consensus; some of it is needed, but taken to a calcified extreme, it becomes death. The extreme of granularity is a popular social pose in almost any era, where people claim to take a little bit of this philosophy, and a little bit of that, and thus to have something "unique" to them which represents them and proves their worth, because after all, no single philosophy was good enough for them, so they must be master of all. This is little more than egomania. No civilization, or organization, can be founded on everyone thinking something different in all ways; that lack of consensus becomes a bickering family in which each member undoes the work of every other, fighting for personal control. Hilariously, the response of most granularists is to argue that such bickering is a sign of healthy government or salutory "diversity of discourse," but somehow, nothing ever changes because each individual is an island, caught up in arguing for his or her own form of control. Thus, business as usual goes on behind closed doors, while the drama of politics and leadership resolves nothing.

Clearly democracy belongs to this form of thinking, as it is based on the granular individual and the importance to the ego of having "individual" ideas and the freedom to "express oneself" by picking some "unique" recombination of philosophy to date and proclaiming that it and only it will suffice for that free-thinking, spirited, "different" individual. But what have democracies accomplished? Outside of the big questions, such as attacking when being attacked or dealing with tsunamis, democracies focus entirely inward and create more detailed bickering. As a result, they advance only the basic concepts of democracy, and miss all of the long-term issues of importance. What was democracy's plan for stopping deforestation? For protecting natural species? For ensuring we do not all become drones of a corporate feudal state? Answer: there was none, but there was plenty of diverse and unique discussion!

The greatest groupthink is granularity, as it rejects the idea that any consensus can occurr without "being" groupthink. I put the term "being" in quotes because, while x may "=" y, in real life things aren't so linear. Thus any consensus may include some groupthink, particularly among those who are incapable of any meaningful contribution; this is not terrible, as it turns them from agents of "unique" and divisive philosophies into those can find accord and act it. This could mean that, in contrast to the last 400 years of history, some sort of actual direction and philosophical unity might visit our civilization. We'd all have to give up the illusion of our "uniqueness," however, and realize that what makes us individuals is not some pretense of political activism, but our individual characters: how heroic we are, what tasks we can do well, our emotional makeup, and the like. You can't make an individual out of a political theory!

This is reality, and it will be called "groupthink" too, because nothing threatens each human as an island like something toward which their theories must correspond in actuality. Pragmatism, or simply, realism - what's wrong with it? We live in the same world, subject to the same natural laws. We have roughly the same bodies. Like it or not, the same forces act within us. Thus, for most decisions, we need roughly the same thing; that's the nature of consensus, and that's how civilizations are formed. This isn't as popular as the idea that we are each gods who think up airy rhetoric and make an individualistic self-image construction out of it. Naturally, the ability to fantasize without consequences is usually preferred to dealing with reality...

But reality it is, and is it so terrible? Once we get over our personal pretense, and that's really all it is, of being "different" for having selected a unique mix of products, friends, political ideologies, and reading matter, we can return to focus on ourselves as actual individuals, and to build up our character from within. Individualism is won by facing what you fear and overcoming it, by making yourself better in every way, and by doing what is right regardless of the cost to your physical life or pretense of uniqueness. You weren't created out of nothing, a god in your own right. No - you're a human being, with parents and history culminating in you. Is that so hard to face?

It's not an easy answer, the kind that occurs in a soundbite and sounds good to everyone, so the issue is dropped and we all go back to socializing. Thus, it's never popular. For many people, it demands the impossible, since they are in wheelchairs of a metaphorical or physical type, and cannot achieve greater character or deeds; however, for most of the people you or I would want to know, it's very possible, and when the misleading groupthink of anti-groupthink is revealed, they can get to work on the real character that underlies the public perception of their selves, something we call self-image. And what would we call this overcoming?

It's an end to passivity, for one thing. What is the opposite of passivity? Anything that is active - activity is a category which can include many items. However, the most basic form of active philosophy is realism, of which nihilism and existentialism and idealism are subsets. When you recognize that physical reality is the ultimate reality, and that all of our ideas must address practical solutions within it, you've taken a big step toward personal autonomy by casting aside the illusion that "unique" airy rhetoric somehow makes you distinct from the uncountable horde of others doing exactly the same thing. Anti-groupthink is the new groupthink, and it's part of the same error that got us into our current mess: being passive instead of active.

Active people do not fear agreeing with others. They are confident in how they perceive reality, and have made up their mins about what must be done, and thus do not fear doing it, even if (insert unpopular person here) advocated the same, or the idea is old, or it offends other people. They simply care about doing what is right in a realistic sense. This is the only way to truly cut out groupthink, because it removes a passive focus - caring about what other people think, or trying to belong to a group - and replaces it with a focus on the task. Any shared idea involves some agreement, but agreement is not groupthink, necessarily; however, agreement not to agree on anything for personal pretense always is. Next time you hear someone shriek "groupthink," ask yourself whether this person is looking at reality including the task, or just jerking off to make a higher self-image for themselves.


72549.7278421299

BlogTerrorist said...

ANUS hackers devastate crowdist propaganda platforms
"Autonomous" Repeaters of Dogma Retreat

7/26/2005 23:51 PM CST
ANUS News

Despite assurances that the so-called "blogosphere," or network of web logs across the West, is free from
intrusion by established dogma, the majority of blogs unwittingly parrot the doctrine that enables our
society to be the mess that it is. However, in a series of highly-coordinated attacks on Sunday, the ANUS
Infoterror Division struck at the heart of the crowdist decentralized propaganda machine, paralyzing some
of its more newsworthy blogs.

These blogs promoted a devolutionary view of genetics and humanity, subliminally depressing anyone who
came into contact with their neurotic, personally obsessive and solutionless view of history.
Consequently, they like silent cancers worked to destroy all that gives the finer people among us hope,
justifying this constant stream of illusionist propaganda with the notion that not offending society's
lowest members is more important than allowing its highest to reach new altitudes.

ANUS infoterrorist PenisBird struck early in the morning hours, applying his comprehensive knowledge of
scripting to flood crowdist spin-control blogs with meaningless information, as if mocking the brainwash
of meaningless garbage they attempt to stuff into the heads of an unsuspecting populace. After several
rounds of reductive hammering, PenisBird and other infoterrorists were able to not only disable these
blogs, but control many of them.

"On the heels of my semi-victory against racistlosers.blogspot.com, I took on other Blogspot blogs,"
PenisBird wrote on the ANUS messageboard. "It's really easy to find a target. I just open any Slashdot
story with a bunch of comments and search for 'blogspot,'" he said. The ANUS team took only a few hours
to make short work of the weblogs, or "blogs," that in theory provide uncensored and unspun information
as an alternative to mainstream media.

For some years, the American Nihilist Underground Society (ANUS) and its members have recognized that,
whether coming from corporation or government or individual, any rhetoric emerging from modern society
supports the crowdist view. Crowdism favors the undifferentiated individuals of the crowd over any
direction that could possibly offend any of said members, and thus restrains not only proactive handling
of society's problems, but anything which would affirm one member of society as more valuable than any
other, except in the realm of monetary reward, which is equal.

Crowdism as a philosophy has gripped the West for the past millennium, but has begun to show signs of
massive internal failure as a population bred for captivity has experienced as corresponding reduction in
mental capacity and willpower, causing internal decay on all levels of the social system. In contrast to
the form of absolutes that crowdists, who fear death and inequality, require, the nihilists of tomorrow
believe in an idealistic realism which affirms the necessity of applying ascendant ideas within a cosmic
natural order.

The American Nihilist Underground Society, or ANUS, has for over a decade used the Internet to oppose the
ignorance of crowdism through crypto-nihilist messages and activism designed for the few remaining
thinkers in the West to enjoy. Recently, as more people have become dissatisfied with the collapsing
crowdist imposition of absolutist society, organizations such as ANUS have experienced a surge in
membership, much to the dismay of official and unofficial watchers imbued with the illusionary crowdist
philosophy.

About ANUS

The American Nihilist Underground Society advocates nihilism, or a removal of interpretive layers from
our perception of physical reality, as a means of transcending neurotic crowdism and thus achieving
adaptive success. It has been online since 1995 and attracts thousands of readers daily with articles
about philosophy, politics, music and culture. Every major internet filtering service bans anus.com, and
many "anti-hate" organizations decry it as an anti-crowdist site which must be censored and its
perpetrators bankrupted.

http://www.anus.com/

About Nihilism

Nihilism is the belief that nothing we perceive has Absolute value; reality exists, but beyond its
inherent meaning to us as the physical container of our existence, it has no significance outside of what
we perceive. "The world is my representation," indeed. When we strip away all of the values projected
onto physical reality and its outcomes, we are left only with personal ideal and natural ideal, and
bringing the former into adaptation with the latter is the lifetime task to which nihilism is a gateway.

http://www.nihil.org/
20379.1607396148

BlogTerrorist said...

Groupthink
Language knows no master. If ever a definitive description of life and the best philosophies possible in it will be written, the people who come after will know how to subvert it: they will, starting from the smallest and working up to the grandest, redefine its words to mean something convenient for their own beliefs; they will bend the belief system toward their own by changing the simple equivalencies of terms. As a result, it will become its own opposite, over time, although the fundamental structure will remain.

A term that became popular in the last decade is "groupthink," referring to the social animal herd-tendency which causes people to bleat out dogma without having any idea of how to understand it. Like most pop-culture diagnoses, it favors an us/them approach which makes everyone in the room feel that, by comprehending the term, they have somehow surpassed all the others, and thus have found a new level of understanding. Yet even the term carries a weight of irony, in that not only can it be misinterpreted, but it can be a form of what it describes, by the very nature of this inclusive, devotional, just-sign-here access to what is perceived as absolute truth.

One seemingly ugly reality that confronts us as developed and not nascent beings is that in order to have civilization, or any kind of belief system, most of the people who work within that group have to be thinking on the same page. Of course, popular literature and movies find this appalling, since what happens to individuality? they cry. The grim face of it is that individuality as an absolute doesn't exist, in the sense that each person would be entirely a creation of their own impulse; this is bad math, which has an equation defining itself without reliance on its starting data or even on mathematics itself. This bad math holds that we are each self-creating gods, having no origin and no reality to which our ideas correspond, and that it's most important that we define ourselves apart from all others. Reality contradicts this.

In reality - that distant place where, when the ego-games of youth and pretense of adulthood are spent - we confront the actual mechanisms that sustain our world, and subsume our "it oughtta be this way" rhetoric to practical, this-is-how-we-survive concerns, for any consensus to exist there must be some degree of similar thinking. Obviously, there will always be critics who point to that and scream "groupthink!" and thus run off smugly congratulating themselves for being different and not falling into the herd, when they have no answers for what must be done as a collective, and thus are in denial of reality itself. This doesn't concern them - their whole agenda, literally, is to make themselves look good and thus to get ahead socially and politically. Obviously, these people are death for us all.

So some degree of group agreement is necessary, but is there a danger of groupthink as well? Certainly, and we cannot see it more clearly than in the Marxist and Rightist groups of today. These are composed of parrots, who rehash the same dogma in new forms but accept it unquestioningly and repeat it. There's a danger in that, in that these people do not understand what they parrot. In most cases, this isn't a problem, since most people lack the aptitude or dedication required to understand politics. When leaders succumb to this, however, a certain kind of spiritual death occurs, but even more importantly, a real-world crisis is engendered: they are no longer testing their ideas against reality, but are constructing castles in the sky and pointing to them saying, "well, it oughtta be" - this is the essence of academic Utopianism, and in the only view of history that matters, that which is measured over millennia and not decades, it is a form of calcification that might appear to be as lively and free-spirited as something else.

Critics - or those who passively point and try to tear down ideas, without suggesting anything to replace them except the airy dogma described above - are notorious for pointing out such groupthink, such conformity, and by finding it in some who uphold an idea using it to "discredit" that idea. Without individuality, they proclaim, there is nothing except groupthink, and therefore the whole concept reeks of submission and conformity, they argue, and therefore should be forgotten. They have forgotten however what philosophers have long learned, which is that any philosophy must pass its own tests. The finger pointers who scream "groupthink!," have, paradoxically, succumbed to groupthink itself by finding in anything but absolute granularity a viable solution.

Granularity is like group consensus; some of it is needed, but taken to a calcified extreme, it becomes death. The extreme of granularity is a popular social pose in almost any era, where people claim to take a little bit of this philosophy, and a little bit of that, and thus to have something "unique" to them which represents them and proves their worth, because after all, no single philosophy was good enough for them, so they must be master of all. This is little more than egomania. No civilization, or organization, can be founded on everyone thinking something different in all ways; that lack of consensus becomes a bickering family in which each member undoes the work of every other, fighting for personal control. Hilariously, the response of most granularists is to argue that such bickering is a sign of healthy government or salutory "diversity of discourse," but somehow, nothing ever changes because each individual is an island, caught up in arguing for his or her own form of control. Thus, business as usual goes on behind closed doors, while the drama of politics and leadership resolves nothing.

Clearly democracy belongs to this form of thinking, as it is based on the granular individual and the importance to the ego of having "individual" ideas and the freedom to "express oneself" by picking some "unique" recombination of philosophy to date and proclaiming that it and only it will suffice for that free-thinking, spirited, "different" individual. But what have democracies accomplished? Outside of the big questions, such as attacking when being attacked or dealing with tsunamis, democracies focus entirely inward and create more detailed bickering. As a result, they advance only the basic concepts of democracy, and miss all of the long-term issues of importance. What was democracy's plan for stopping deforestation? For protecting natural species? For ensuring we do not all become drones of a corporate feudal state? Answer: there was none, but there was plenty of diverse and unique discussion!

The greatest groupthink is granularity, as it rejects the idea that any consensus can occurr without "being" groupthink. I put the term "being" in quotes because, while x may "=" y, in real life things aren't so linear. Thus any consensus may include some groupthink, particularly among those who are incapable of any meaningful contribution; this is not terrible, as it turns them from agents of "unique" and divisive philosophies into those can find accord and act it. This could mean that, in contrast to the last 400 years of history, some sort of actual direction and philosophical unity might visit our civilization. We'd all have to give up the illusion of our "uniqueness," however, and realize that what makes us individuals is not some pretense of political activism, but our individual characters: how heroic we are, what tasks we can do well, our emotional makeup, and the like. You can't make an individual out of a political theory!

This is reality, and it will be called "groupthink" too, because nothing threatens each human as an island like something toward which their theories must correspond in actuality. Pragmatism, or simply, realism - what's wrong with it? We live in the same world, subject to the same natural laws. We have roughly the same bodies. Like it or not, the same forces act within us. Thus, for most decisions, we need roughly the same thing; that's the nature of consensus, and that's how civilizations are formed. This isn't as popular as the idea that we are each gods who think up airy rhetoric and make an individualistic self-image construction out of it. Naturally, the ability to fantasize without consequences is usually preferred to dealing with reality...

But reality it is, and is it so terrible? Once we get over our personal pretense, and that's really all it is, of being "different" for having selected a unique mix of products, friends, political ideologies, and reading matter, we can return to focus on ourselves as actual individuals, and to build up our character from within. Individualism is won by facing what you fear and overcoming it, by making yourself better in every way, and by doing what is right regardless of the cost to your physical life or pretense of uniqueness. You weren't created out of nothing, a god in your own right. No - you're a human being, with parents and history culminating in you. Is that so hard to face?

It's not an easy answer, the kind that occurs in a soundbite and sounds good to everyone, so the issue is dropped and we all go back to socializing. Thus, it's never popular. For many people, it demands the impossible, since they are in wheelchairs of a metaphorical or physical type, and cannot achieve greater character or deeds; however, for most of the people you or I would want to know, it's very possible, and when the misleading groupthink of anti-groupthink is revealed, they can get to work on the real character that underlies the public perception of their selves, something we call self-image. And what would we call this overcoming?

It's an end to passivity, for one thing. What is the opposite of passivity? Anything that is active - activity is a category which can include many items. However, the most basic form of active philosophy is realism, of which nihilism and existentialism and idealism are subsets. When you recognize that physical reality is the ultimate reality, and that all of our ideas must address practical solutions within it, you've taken a big step toward personal autonomy by casting aside the illusion that "unique" airy rhetoric somehow makes you distinct from the uncountable horde of others doing exactly the same thing. Anti-groupthink is the new groupthink, and it's part of the same error that got us into our current mess: being passive instead of active.

Active people do not fear agreeing with others. They are confident in how they perceive reality, and have made up their mins about what must be done, and thus do not fear doing it, even if (insert unpopular person here) advocated the same, or the idea is old, or it offends other people. They simply care about doing what is right in a realistic sense. This is the only way to truly cut out groupthink, because it removes a passive focus - caring about what other people think, or trying to belong to a group - and replaces it with a focus on the task. Any shared idea involves some agreement, but agreement is not groupthink, necessarily; however, agreement not to agree on anything for personal pretense always is. Next time you hear someone shriek "groupthink," ask yourself whether this person is looking at reality including the task, or just jerking off to make a higher self-image for themselves.


18817.5563298135

BlogTerrorist said...

Sure our lives by either quality or quantity. If it was a great steak, we say so and leave it at that; if it was mediocre, we say that sixteen ounces of it for thirty dollars was a "good deal." The quantitative view is most popular because it is accessible to everyone, since only those who are endowed by nature with the sense to know a good steak from a crappy one can tell you its qualitative value. Since most people are not so fortunate, we talk about what a "great deal" it is that you can get something that legally qualifies as steak in prodigious amounts at a low price per pound. This is the essence of democratic liberal free enterprise society, in that it eschews all things which require a higher kind of person and replace them with the kind of assessments even a moron can follow (and congratulate himself for the "good deal" he's getting).

But how does the qualitative work in a society? After all, say the "wise" pundits, wouldn't it be hard to organize a society around qualitative value, since only a few can assess it? This column offers an example in the small. Peer-to-peer file sharing can take many forms, but one of the most common is that of a hub; this is a small community where people exchange files. Normally, to get on a hub, you must have some quantity of files to be shared, and without that, you can be excluded "fairly" because, of course, everyone can see that you need to have a minimum amount of stuff to get on. Like cheap steak, it might be stuff that would only appeal to morons, but it shows you've done the effort and therefore deserve to be on the hub - that's "fair," sensu liberal democracy.

The hub toward which A.N.U.S. contributes, the neoclassical hub, does not operate this way. There is no minimum share size to get on, and there is no reward for having more stuff; instead of quantity, the hub focuses on quality, because unlike liberal democracies it recognizes that unlimited moronic music is not "equal" to a small amount of quality music, no matter how much the average voter can't tell the difference. You can get on the hub right now and start participating, but the admins who periodically peruse shares will eventually check out what you have and -- Slipknot? Cradle of Filth? Pantera? -- those who have moronic music get booted. I frequently get mail from these people, objecting that their ejection was not "fair," and these mails invariably contain the line, "But I had (amount) of share!" These people are used to a quantitative, passive society, where no matter what the quality, as long as you get enough there to put a number in the blank on the form, you're considered part of the club.

Not to say that a hub is a club, of course - a hub is a tool for sharing files, and a social space, as well. But what it is more than anything else is a reflection of the values of those who meet there. People who want to listen to crowd-pleasing music go to the bigger hubs and hang out with other people who like Britney, or cool jazz, or light rock, or even indiscriminate metal and grindcore - what the crowd wants is acceptance for mere quantitative participation, such as the number one (1) - if there is an (1) individual, then it should be equal, and admitted to the club, because - look - it exists, after all. This is what the crowd always desires, which is the paradoxical concept of group participation through pseudo-individuality. You can't tell them their taste in music sucks, because then they'll wail about how they've been wronged and it's not "fair."

For those who have made their way out of the biggest slice of groupthink, it's healthier to find an enclave, or a smaller place where their views are protected from the majority view, which is the quantitative. If you have unending time and nothing better to do, it might appeal to you to listen to all 100,000 death metal, grindcore, black metal and heavy metal bands yet created. More likely, unless you're a retarded invalid, you've got other things to do and so depend on finding the quality stuff through socialization and information resources. Naturally, the crowd will oppose you wherever you try to do this, as they like to believe either (a) that all music is equal or (b) that the most popular music is the best, and therefore you don't need to actually look - just see what they're playing on the radio now; "trust us." The enclave ideal is naturally opposed to that of open to the public group participation.

Any social unit based on this notion of qualitative logic, and eschewing unnecessary quantitative logic, would naturally be a better place to live. Quantitative logic gets you the lowest common denominator, but if you return assessment to that of degree of quality, you instead get only the better efforts. Select the better people to be part of this community; that's inherent to its nature. Let them pick the better art, learning, science and products, and then you've got less garbage (inferior products break frequently, and can rarely be repaired). When they make rules, they don't have to worry about everyone - oh no, fat people in wheelchairs cannot fit into our new library - but those who actually make a difference. To people concerned about quality, the opinions of the mass are not important, and thus they don't have to worry about offending people and can actually tell it like they see it - something you cannot do in our liberal democracy, or you'll be blacklisted and investigated and eventually forced to take a job as a janitor somewhere.

A qualitative society is by nature structured toward building consensus. If you have something of quality, you hold it up as a shining example, and what is agree on is not that we should all have a similar quantity of thing, but that we should all work toward having a similar quality of character, strength, intelligence in ourselves. Since your society only admits people of quality, you don't have to assume that every other person on the street is a moron, and thus can have compassion for random people in society - and have the option to socialize more, since you don't have to first apply a filter to screen out the idiots. This is how society used to be, but it was lost in the populist revolt that demanded we all be equal and have an equal right to quantities of money; see what you've given up, in order to please the crowd? Well - at least on this hub, there's a sliver of what once was, and what, if we work toward it, will be again.
29127.607110701

BlogTerrorist said...

Ya, sure, I did it and it felt good, wasting a bunch of niggers in school. I also did plenty of nigger-loving race-traitors. The killing seemed so unreal: Wounded black bodies twisted in pain howling in screams for mercy, I soon put them out of their misery.

I Stanford Malicor was born May 16, 1984 in a town of about 30,000 located in Mississippi. I have no brothers or sisters. My mom, Janice, works as a local restaurant as a bartender. She works hard but can be exceptional bitchy at times. My Dad has been a deputy sheriff for about 14 years. He is a good dad and treats me well, when he isn't getting drunk and knocking around mom and me.

Dad was bad but his abuse didn't cause me to dismiss all the niggers in class. My school life had been crap for years: While in the sixth grade, some crypt gang-bangers started to spread rumors that I enjoyed taking dick up the butt. I guess they thought they would get popular by harassing the alleged "school fag."

I got in a fight with a couple of the rumor spreading niggers but the stories grew worse. My next five years of school was filled with nearly constant mental abuse and the daily ritual of beatings from the chimpmen gangs. I sure the hell didn't want to pack some butt, but the facts didn't matter to the niggers.

Sometimes I prayed for death.

As a cop, dad loved to collect all types of cool weapons. He took me shooting many times; I learned to respect the power of a gun. Dad kept all the stuff in two gun safes in our basement.

It was so cool, my dad had all that good cop stuff: handguns, assault-rifles, shotguns, teargas canisters, etc... Dad's friends on the force had nicknamed him "Officer Rambo". The weapons were always kept locked up and only dad had the key. It was no big deal that we owned guns: we lived in a area where everyone enjoyed firearms.

Few knew that my dad was also a high ranking member in the Almira Knights of The KKK. Dad had no love for niggers but he had to act like it and he played the part very well, when he wasn't beating up niggers for resisting arrest.

I never before considered killing anything or anyone until we got a DBS TV system at home and I started watching CNN. TV news showed me the quickest way to fame: pull the trigger on some subhuman students that deserved to die. Waste yourself a bunch of scumbags and you are instantly a TV celebrity. As time passed I continued to intensely study the reports of school shootings. looking for the best plan: the most kills with the least risk.

The abuse at school was becoming intolerable, the niggers refined torture into a fine art. I sentenced the black bastards to death and started making plans to kill them all.

I still needed a whole lot of guns to accomplish the goal but dad kept the firearms locked up all the time. It took some careful planning, but I did score; I switched dad's gun safe key with a look alike key Sunday morning as he was passed out from the usual vodka binge.

Later that evening, I hid the guns in a ravine next to the school.

Monday was like any other day except that some stoned sambo kicked me in the balls, it didn't hurt much, guess I was getting used to it.

Before 5th period was over I ran from my last class with my teacher screaming "Where are you going?" Quickly I sprinted to my guns stash and began arming. I recovered my dad's M-16 assault-rifle and snapped in a full 120 round drum magazine. I also put on a load bearing vest stuffed with three thirty round magazines and a loaded handgun.

Finally, I put on a backpack containing three recently assembled pipe bombs, wrapped in nails and coated in poison. Nice and deadly surprises for any unlucky soul that got between me and my targets.

I had a copy of the terrorists handbook printed out from the internet. Thanks to the Almira Public Library's free internet computers for the public, I know how to build the most lethal of destructive devices.

Running at full speed while loaded down with gear was quite difficult. I was very careful not to be seen until it was too late for the coons. The plan was to attack just right after school, when all the niggers were getting out of class. The moment of vengeance was at hand!

As the bell ringed the monkeys came out. I ran from my hiding place, holding the M-16 at hip level, and positioned myself in front of the sub-human trash. It was time to send these niggers back to hell from where they came. I held down the trigger and sprayed full-auto hollow-point bullets into the black mass.

I can remember the overwhelming rush of pleasure as the first africans were ripped apart. It felt like I was in A theatre watching, in slow motion, a movie of myself making many bodies.

It was grand: all the niggers in front of me screamed and dropped like flies. Those who could, ran back into school with a horrified look of terror on their faces. I stopped shooting, just for a second, because I just had to laugh. All the pain and misery these inferiors had caused me and I was returning it back to them! I squeezed the trigger again and finished off the few nigs who were still alive. Blood from the dead sambos begin flowing into a storm drain as I emptied the drum magazine.

I then reloaded with a 30round banana clip, it was time to move my killing party elsewhere. Leaving the screaming wounded, and the silent dead, I proceeded into the school to shoot any black bastards I could find. For the first time in my life I was truly alive!

The teachers were hiding inside various classrooms like scared rats but it made little difference. My constant assault-rifle fire found human targets.

Black or white didn't matter. These teaching fools had for years poisoned the minds white kids with their diversity race-mixing bullshit. Time for the white race-traitors to die also.

What a pleasure it was killing these people! In the past the faculty had ignored the abuse. Afraid of being labeled "racist" the teachers usually let the niggers run free, like the animals they are, and the whites were the victims.

The air then filled with the sounds of sirens as the cop cars got closer. It was time to move. I proceeded to quench the nearly white hot M-16 machinegun barrel in the vagina of my wounded black English teacher. That sure was more fun than diagramming sentences.

Discarding the M-16, I grabbed my pipe bombs and handgun to waste the pigs.

I waited in ambush behind a blood drenched shrub as three coppers pulled up in their shiny cars. The first car exploded in a ball of fire as an accurately tossed a pipe bomb landed underneath the car, igniting the gas tank. The concussion from the blast knocked me to the ground.

I next shot a nigger piggy in the head with my dad's backup service revolver, while the apeman lay wounded from the pipe bomb blast. However the third piggy was stubborn coonboy and he took my last two pipe bombs to finish off.

It was time to cruise, I ran to my stashed motorcycle and got the hell out of there. While driving off I could still hear the shattered screams of dieing niggers twisting in the grass.

All together it was a great day of racial purifications!

That was the most fun I ever had and hope that other White Power kids get even. Their is no better feeling in the world than spraying lead into a nigger or race-traitor who deserves it, it is a far better choice than suicide!58609.8047934165

BlogTerrorist said...

ANUS hackers devastate crowdist propaganda platforms
"Autonomous" Repeaters of Dogma Retreat

7/26/2005 23:51 PM CST
ANUS News

Despite assurances that the so-called "blogosphere," or network of web logs across the West, is free from
intrusion by established dogma, the majority of blogs unwittingly parrot the doctrine that enables our
society to be the mess that it is. However, in a series of highly-coordinated attacks on Sunday, the ANUS
Infoterror Division struck at the heart of the crowdist decentralized propaganda machine, paralyzing some
of its more newsworthy blogs.

These blogs promoted a devolutionary view of genetics and humanity, subliminally depressing anyone who
came into contact with their neurotic, personally obsessive and solutionless view of history.
Consequently, they like silent cancers worked to destroy all that gives the finer people among us hope,
justifying this constant stream of illusionist propaganda with the notion that not offending society's
lowest members is more important than allowing its highest to reach new altitudes.

ANUS infoterrorist PenisBird struck early in the morning hours, applying his comprehensive knowledge of
scripting to flood crowdist spin-control blogs with meaningless information, as if mocking the brainwash
of meaningless garbage they attempt to stuff into the heads of an unsuspecting populace. After several
rounds of reductive hammering, PenisBird and other infoterrorists were able to not only disable these
blogs, but control many of them.

"On the heels of my semi-victory against racistlosers.blogspot.com, I took on other Blogspot blogs,"
PenisBird wrote on the ANUS messageboard. "It's really easy to find a target. I just open any Slashdot
story with a bunch of comments and search for 'blogspot,'" he said. The ANUS team took only a few hours
to make short work of the weblogs, or "blogs," that in theory provide uncensored and unspun information
as an alternative to mainstream media.

For some years, the American Nihilist Underground Society (ANUS) and its members have recognized that,
whether coming from corporation or government or individual, any rhetoric emerging from modern society
supports the crowdist view. Crowdism favors the undifferentiated individuals of the crowd over any
direction that could possibly offend any of said members, and thus restrains not only proactive handling
of society's problems, but anything which would affirm one member of society as more valuable than any
other, except in the realm of monetary reward, which is equal.

Crowdism as a philosophy has gripped the West for the past millennium, but has begun to show signs of
massive internal failure as a population bred for captivity has experienced as corresponding reduction in
mental capacity and willpower, causing internal decay on all levels of the social system. In contrast to
the form of absolutes that crowdists, who fear death and inequality, require, the nihilists of tomorrow
believe in an idealistic realism which affirms the necessity of applying ascendant ideas within a cosmic
natural order.

The American Nihilist Underground Society, or ANUS, has for over a decade used the Internet to oppose the
ignorance of crowdism through crypto-nihilist messages and activism designed for the few remaining
thinkers in the West to enjoy. Recently, as more people have become dissatisfied with the collapsing
crowdist imposition of absolutist society, organizations such as ANUS have experienced a surge in
membership, much to the dismay of official and unofficial watchers imbued with the illusionary crowdist
philosophy.

About ANUS

The American Nihilist Underground Society advocates nihilism, or a removal of interpretive layers from
our perception of physical reality, as a means of transcending neurotic crowdism and thus achieving
adaptive success. It has been online since 1995 and attracts thousands of readers daily with articles
about philosophy, politics, music and culture. Every major internet filtering service bans anus.com, and
many "anti-hate" organizations decry it as an anti-crowdist site which must be censored and its
perpetrators bankrupted.

http://www.anus.com/

About Nihilism

Nihilism is the belief that nothing we perceive has Absolute value; reality exists, but beyond its
inherent meaning to us as the physical container of our existence, it has no significance outside of what
we perceive. "The world is my representation," indeed. When we strip away all of the values projected
onto physical reality and its outcomes, we are left only with personal ideal and natural ideal, and
bringing the former into adaptation with the latter is the lifetime task to which nihilism is a gateway.

http://www.nihil.org/
64083.1500329558

BlogTerrorist said...

How to Become Your Parents

We all know what it is that makes our parents so distinctive: adults are more beaten down than children because they've seen more frustration and hence, written off more avenues of approach in life. We're all familiar with the sayings they have. Don't fight it, go with the flow, it's just how things are. Don't resist, give up, go along, in other words. For this reason, most people have a nagging fear of being "conformist" like their parents.

What your parents are, more than anything else, is practical. They've set aside a few things they can control and written off the rest, knowing - if they're smart - intuitively that things such as democracy, free enterprise, etc. are covers for the vast ongoing kleptocracy of modern government. They no longer have time for ideals because in their experience, every ideal gets dragged down into the same old thing. You can avoid this, if you want to, but it requires thinking outside of what is commonly accepted as an ideal.

It used to be (1960s) that the way to become your parents was to be conservative. If your only values were earning money and going to church, by god, you'd be a parent in no time at all. The reason for this is that conservatism was where the sheep hid back then, because it was the safest ideology. Now the sheep have found an even safer ideology, and that's liberalism, in all of its covert forms - including what passes for "conservatism" today.

The core of liberalism is class warfare, or the ongoing desire to lift up those who are impoverished or oppressed so that there can be social equality. Liberal ideologies from Communism to the Democratic Party to Anarchists to what passes for "Greens" all share this basic thrust. Their fundamental idea is that if we make everyone happy, there will be no strife, and if there's no strife, we will not be personally endangered. And that's where liberal thought ends. It doesn't go on to consider what might make a life meaningful, or make living in a society positive. But it's a perfect ideology for getting along with people.

Think about it. If you encounter people working on your house, bums in the street, impoverished oppressed AIDS patients, etc. you can tell them you're on their side. You believe everyone should have what you do, and as a token of that, you'll hand them a small gift and send them on their way. It's a combination of pacifism, or refusing to fight for what must be done because someone might get hurt, and pity, or finding a way to make others seem puny by giving them things and thus affirming the roles of you as powerful giver and them as weaker receiver. For whatever reason, because it refuses to assert that some ideas are worth fighting for over others, and because it refuses to acknowledge that not all people are equal in ability, liberalism is a very popular belief, even when hidden in a conservative skin in the style of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

However, remember the old adage: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberalism, as good intentions, creates disorder out of society by, instead of putting effort into the growing areas of society, e.g. its excellent people, putting energy into those who are going nowhere and removing any external pressure for them to rise up out of a state of failure. Since liberalism is one of those beliefs composed of moral/ideological projections instead of adaptations to reality, it also puts everyone in spacy cloud-nine fantasyland, where they dream on about how good they are and how the poor are being helped while what they should be focusing on - society as a whole - goes into the toilet. But no one ever got fired for adopting a liberal idea, because if you don't stamp it with allegiance to a certain party (red star), the basic concepts are socially inoffensive. "Sure, I accept every person as my brother or sister."

Liberalism is in fact no different from the conservative Christianity which was the bedrock of conservatism in the 1950s. We fight the Soviets because they don't have "freedom," so what we're doing is morally right. Now we fight "racists" for the same reason, not thinking that perhaps there is no end to this war. But let me share with you a little secret: whether we call it Christianity, or liberalism, or pluralism, or humanism, the simplest way to become a beaten down and submissive droid like your parents is to adopt this viewpoint. The secret is that out of all the beliefs you can potentially adopt, almost all are derived from liberalism, and therefore, basically the same.

Be a hippie or a Republican, an anarchist or a Green, a Libertarian or a Communist. It doesn't matter. You're still upholding the same basic broken belief system that originates in the Jewish idea that morality should preserve the individual at all costs, and avoid personal sacrifice; this is in dramatic contrast to the Indo-Aryan ideal that ideals should be upheld at all costs, as they are the basis of structure in our lives. No matter how much you rebel, with Che Guevara posters on your walls and emo in the CD player, you're still acting through the same tired drama that has torn down every civilization, which is a progressive distancing from reality and regression into the individual.

This type of thinking makes it easy to be beaten down. You can't have any strong opinions, because that would offend someone, and therefore be not only un-liberal but bad for business. You can't desire any change outside that mythological beast known as your "personal life," because that might conflict with someone else's desires - no matter how insane - and thus cause offense and loss of business. Finally, you can't ever suggest that the way we do things - liberalism - is in error, because it's clearly a "good" thing and also a socially-accepted one. Keep these ideas in your head, and soon it won't be worth fighting and you'll give in to the flow. You will have become your parents. 34728.2830677773

BlogTerrorist said...

Progress versus Getting it Right

A short note on the nature of life: all of what goes on in the human mind is pure creation, construction,
words and symbols and designs used to describe something that exists outside of our minds. That doesn't
mean that it isn't an objectively-functioning world out there; try putting your hand in a moving blender
and you'll see the world is very consistent in its actions. However, this world is sometimes maintained
by some very spacy ideas, like chaos theory or cosmic idealism, and may not even be "real" in any sense
of physical matter existing. However, insofar as events go on in it, it is "real" and you are subject to
the forces of its reality.

Being able to understand both the unreality of life, and its mundane but effective physicality, is the
essence of what is required to be a realist. Realists do not trouble themselves by trying to explain away
reality with bad science or bad religion. They look at the world, take good as well as bad, and adapt.
This is their ultimate game and goal and it makes sense, if one is a complex organism who cares about
function, to take this course of action.

Fools, on the other hand, either deny significance beyond the material, or assert the existence of some
fantasy world that is either more important than reality or "describes" reality in some way that is
assumed to be important. They confuse our evaluation of the world (mind) with its actuality (body), and
thus we call them dualists, a term that in itself is dual: dualists believe in a world beyond this one,
and most commonly construct it along the lines of mind/body separation. Those of us who are realists are
unitivists: we believe the physical world, our minds, and any significance or values abstracted from
those are part of a contiguous, rational system (although not rational in a linear sense).

Because I am a late-night psychopath reader who likes a good story more than the pretentious crap that
passes for literature of late (two exceptions: Tom Wolfe and William Gibson), I found myself digging into
"Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton. Yes, yes, I know, it's garbage - but only on the surface. Crichton's
goal, since the wildly successful "Andromeda Strain" that kept him from having to practice medicine, has
been to wrap a small amount of adventure around a discussion of scientific implications. Unlike most
scientists, with the possible exception of Carl Sagan, Crichton directs his critical eye not toward the
technology itself but toward its meaning via its effect on the world and our lives.

As such, he's both a brutal cynic, and a breathtaking concept writer, in that he grasps exactly what is
scaring us at any given time and explains it in such a way that those of average or higher IQ can
perceive its strengths and dangers. He's good at not becoming a hysterical liberal, but hasn't yet lapsed
into the complacent "as long as the stock market's still up" attitude of most American/English-style
"conservatives." What's great about this book is that he takes issue with modern society's explosion of
technology, and points out that no one considers the consequences.

Ian Malcolm, a (homosexual) British mathematician, is the voice of the author in this work; not only do
quotes from him introduce each chapter, but his lengthy monologues summarize one of the two major topic
areas of this book. The first, obviously, is genetic engineering - bringing an ancient form back to life.
It is counterbalanced by a study of chaos theory, in which Crichton attempts to explain how natural
systems work. The result shows hard science in the grips of forces its unleashers cannot understand,
namely the tendencies of systems to achieve and lose balance, and this metaphor forms the basis of
Crichton's lesson to modern science.

He uses harsh words for recent epochs. Most technical people and scientists are "thintelligent," Malcolm
says, meaning that they can function well in a high-intensity narrow bandwidth of thought, but are lost
to practical implications or systemic thinking. Crichton uses the words linear thinking several times,
and lambasts the west for adopting this form of thought, although he does not trace it to its
Jewish-Christian roots (Crichton grew up in a Jewish neighborhood in NYC, but seems to be a gentile). He
illustrates this crisis several times through the behavior of his characters, who are always just saying
"Well, now our technology is working again" when some dinosaur comes crashing through the wall and eats a
coworker.

It's a form of subtle comedy usually found in horror movies. Crichton makes his points, however, and
since this writing is not here to review the book, let us move on to the next point: Crichton also makes
a classic error of the type made by scientists and not philosophers, and it's nearly unforgivable. He
posits that linear science is "obsolete," and we need to move on, much as we moved on from medieval
times. In this, he reveals his ignorance by adhering to the progressive fallacy.

Espoused by Hegel, lambasted by Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and anyone else with a brain, the progressive
fallacy is that idea that we are always growing toward a "new" higher state of humankind. You can hear
echoes of this in the dumbshits who, if anything is proposed, state they don't want an existing path but
want something "new." It's also found extensively in media and commerce, which benefits quite a bit from
the automatic assumption that of two things, the newer one is better. In a book excoriating linear
science, how about some words for how stupid linear history is?

If one reads widely enough, and deeply enough, it becomes clear that history is linear only insofar as
our measurement of time is (whether time "really is" linear or not is for another debate - we perceive it
as linear; end of story). According to traditionalists and ancient sources, "history" is a process much
like the lives of individuals, by which civilizations are born, grow old and fat, and finally decay into
sordid collapse. Crichton alludes to a scientific version of this philosophy when he notes that
fluctuations in cotton prices over the last century mirror their vicissitudes during the course of an
average day. Why doesn't he again turn his mirror to history?

The answer is that like most of us moderns, he's well-educated in linear thinking in ways even he, not a
dumb man by any stretch, cannot recognize. He's like Hegel: a well-intentioned innocent who needed to be
more warlike and cruel in his thinking, slicing away the ideas that mostly made sense and replacing them
with ideas that always did. The progressive view of history is with us always, whether in television
commercials or political speeches. It's a convenient way of assuming that no one else has seen what we
have, and that we're "unique" in this time - all of which seems to me to be a way of staving off death.

Even if our technology never occurred on earth before, and our societies have encountered configurations
that did not previously exist, when looked at from a higher-level design analysis, nothing that is
happening now has not happened in the past - and the consequences of our now are just as obvious as they
were for past societies. It's another way of saying that, while the scenery might change, the play
doesn't - the emotions and motivations of the actors are as real in one time as in another. Thus what
ancient Greeks observed is still observable and relevant today, as are observations that are much older.

What Crichton bemoans - our tendency to see the world only through the eyes of science, and thus how we
can change raw materials into some kind of product - has its roots in many things. How to explain that?
Quite simply: it's a lower level of thinking than the enlightened thinking required to see what must be
done. When one gets over the linear model of history, and sees past the "progressive" view, it becomes
clear that there are no "new" thoughts, only thoughts in new contexts with varying degrees of correct and
incorrect adaptation to our situation. This is realism, and only in realism do we find an escape from the
twin barriers of materialism and dualistic idealism.

I could wax on with more philosophical terms, but you can look them up - I recommend the Cambridge
Encyclopedia of Philosophy and an Oxford English Dictionary, for starters (if not, there's SEP). At some
point even talking too much on any topic makes it wanking, as one either is able to see the truth of the
situation, or casting around blindly - more of something (experience, wisdom, intelligence, time) is
needed. Part of what Crichton's saying that is also being said in this article is simply that life is
real, and when we make decisions, we should place the airy logic secondary to a practical view of life as
something in which we live.

Crichton points out that we cannot destroy life on earth, which is a way of saying that, no matter how
much humanity screws up, life will come back, although it will not be as developed as as great as what we
have now; it's a backhanded slam at humanity's recklessness. In saying this, he communicates something
important: we should make the right decisions for our own benefit, as right now, we're in a
self-destructive tailspin of bad values. Having now experienced enough of life, both sane (good) and
insane (destructive), I can say that I prefer sane because destructive values always lead to devolution
and thus more boring existences.

Further, if Crichton ever transcends his linear view of history, he'll come upon a great truth of our
world: to live as a Romantic is the only way to live, and if one is a Romantic, one does not hunger for
"new" things, but for what is eternally true. One does not need the "progressive" view of history in
order to realize that a well-fought battle, a lifelong love, a feast of friends, etc. is an eternally
good - sane, adaptive, evolutionary, logical - thing. We rail against "good" and "evil" because they
remove judgment from practicality into some weird abstraction, and from that we get a progressive view of
history, moving from ancient evil to modern good. I wish the dinosaurs would tear that one down and throw
it into the fires, as humanity would be healthier if in its absence it instead focused on reality.

July 17, 2005
59593.7846747775

BlogTerrorist said...

The Paradox of Individuality:


The roots of modernity stem from the importance placed in the individual above all else. Modern society places emphasis on society as a collection of individuals, rather than on society as a unit of smaller pieces reaching for a goal much as an organism is created out of organs working towards a single goal- sustaining the existence of the whole. Because of this focus on the pieces, fragmented and separated from the whole, consensus can never be achieved, except to the lowest possible values- comfort mainly, as seemingly all other popular values, whether in a physical sense as drives most consumerism, or in a mental sense, as in entertainment and illusions of personal importance, which act to cause the one enjoying them to cease thinking about issues of mortality or accomplishment (or, more specifically, lack thereof).



In order for this happy impotence to continue existing, it requires that every individual be given not only the mental comfort outlined above, but none to excel in any meaningful way, for that would be implying that not everybody is equal, and would shatter the blissful numbness. Echoes of "Brave New World" and "Paradise Lost" should be ringing loudly in the reader's head right now; in guaranteeing comfort and a comfortable self-esteem for all, it stifles all potential towards anything other than mediocrity.



The reason that this goes unnoticed by most people is because of the adornments to one's affectation that this system allows. Every person can choose to put on a different superficial role, their own dysfunction, while acting like everyone else. They can choose to buy the Britney Spears CDs because of their complete faith in blind hedonism to lead them through any situation, or they can buy their favorite album from Linkin Park to demonstrate their unfocused anger. At their root, though, they're engaging in the same action- purchasing a plastic product to demonstrate their "uniqueness" for playing this role, which will be forgotten and thrown away within a few months (popular music aims at expressing nothing other than base, meaningless sentiments, and thus is wholly disposable and similar).



Most people, being unable to create great works or take action towards a cause in any form, love this form of individuality because it allows them to think that they're an individual without having to exert any sort of effort to distance themselves from the norm; it allows them to be equally important to the person who writes great symphonies, or is the greatest warrior, despite their complete lack of distinction. Thus, they create mobs which operate wholly to provide a place for the individual's sense of ego, and harshly attack all that pose some threat to their sense of self importance; which happens to be basically anyone who has some distinction in their merit, rather than the role that they play and call a "personality". Thus, the paradox of individuality is revealed; through holding up the concept of the individual above all else, it forces everyone to be the same, undistinguished person.
63541.9269590861

BlogTerrorist said...

Your uncle is a bar of soap, your cousin is a lampshade
Your best friend is a candle, and you're a fucking jew
Your neighbors are a landfill, too bad you got away
But all the jews that didn't have rotted in the lime pits
50 years later, you've still got an agenda
For world domination, but you'd better think again
To when we had the upper hand, der furher had control
You kikes were in the cattle cars, then shoved into an oven...
Think of all the friends and family you lost...


Happy Hanukaust!


You claim six million, i wish it were true
But you're a pack of lying fucking jews
A holocaust memorial is built on the land
Where most of your relatives are buried in the sand
In bulldozed graves to cover the pollution...
Too bad you weren't part of the final solution
Wearing long sleeves to cover your tattoo
Will never hide the fact that you're a dirty jew
Think of all the friends and family you lost...


Happy Hanukaust!


Light the menorah and think of the time
When you sold out your neighbors for a handful of dimes
All those filthy jews... they must have been pissed,
They couldn't buy their way onto Schindler's list
Think of all the friends and family you lost...


Happy Hanukaust!
43334.8381226961

BlogTerrorist said...

How to Become Your Parents

We all know what it is that makes our parents so distinctive: adults are more beaten down than children because they've seen more frustration and hence, written off more avenues of approach in life. We're all familiar with the sayings they have. Don't fight it, go with the flow, it's just how things are. Don't resist, give up, go along, in other words. For this reason, most people have a nagging fear of being "conformist" like their parents.

What your parents are, more than anything else, is practical. They've set aside a few things they can control and written off the rest, knowing - if they're smart - intuitively that things such as democracy, free enterprise, etc. are covers for the vast ongoing kleptocracy of modern government. They no longer have time for ideals because in their experience, every ideal gets dragged down into the same old thing. You can avoid this, if you want to, but it requires thinking outside of what is commonly accepted as an ideal.

It used to be (1960s) that the way to become your parents was to be conservative. If your only values were earning money and going to church, by god, you'd be a parent in no time at all. The reason for this is that conservatism was where the sheep hid back then, because it was the safest ideology. Now the sheep have found an even safer ideology, and that's liberalism, in all of its covert forms - including what passes for "conservatism" today.

The core of liberalism is class warfare, or the ongoing desire to lift up those who are impoverished or oppressed so that there can be social equality. Liberal ideologies from Communism to the Democratic Party to Anarchists to what passes for "Greens" all share this basic thrust. Their fundamental idea is that if we make everyone happy, there will be no strife, and if there's no strife, we will not be personally endangered. And that's where liberal thought ends. It doesn't go on to consider what might make a life meaningful, or make living in a society positive. But it's a perfect ideology for getting along with people.

Think about it. If you encounter people working on your house, bums in the street, impoverished oppressed AIDS patients, etc. you can tell them you're on their side. You believe everyone should have what you do, and as a token of that, you'll hand them a small gift and send them on their way. It's a combination of pacifism, or refusing to fight for what must be done because someone might get hurt, and pity, or finding a way to make others seem puny by giving them things and thus affirming the roles of you as powerful giver and them as weaker receiver. For whatever reason, because it refuses to assert that some ideas are worth fighting for over others, and because it refuses to acknowledge that not all people are equal in ability, liberalism is a very popular belief, even when hidden in a conservative skin in the style of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

However, remember the old adage: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberalism, as good intentions, creates disorder out of society by, instead of putting effort into the growing areas of society, e.g. its excellent people, putting energy into those who are going nowhere and removing any external pressure for them to rise up out of a state of failure. Since liberalism is one of those beliefs composed of moral/ideological projections instead of adaptations to reality, it also puts everyone in spacy cloud-nine fantasyland, where they dream on about how good they are and how the poor are being helped while what they should be focusing on - society as a whole - goes into the toilet. But no one ever got fired for adopting a liberal idea, because if you don't stamp it with allegiance to a certain party (red star), the basic concepts are socially inoffensive. "Sure, I accept every person as my brother or sister."

Liberalism is in fact no different from the conservative Christianity which was the bedrock of conservatism in the 1950s. We fight the Soviets because they don't have "freedom," so what we're doing is morally right. Now we fight "racists" for the same reason, not thinking that perhaps there is no end to this war. But let me share with you a little secret: whether we call it Christianity, or liberalism, or pluralism, or humanism, the simplest way to become a beaten down and submissive droid like your parents is to adopt this viewpoint. The secret is that out of all the beliefs you can potentially adopt, almost all are derived from liberalism, and therefore, basically the same.

Be a hippie or a Republican, an anarchist or a Green, a Libertarian or a Communist. It doesn't matter. You're still upholding the same basic broken belief system that originates in the Jewish idea that morality should preserve the individual at all costs, and avoid personal sacrifice; this is in dramatic contrast to the Indo-Aryan ideal that ideals should be upheld at all costs, as they are the basis of structure in our lives. No matter how much you rebel, with Che Guevara posters on your walls and emo in the CD player, you're still acting through the same tired drama that has torn down every civilization, which is a progressive distancing from reality and regression into the individual.

This type of thinking makes it easy to be beaten down. You can't have any strong opinions, because that would offend someone, and therefore be not only un-liberal but bad for business. You can't desire any change outside that mythological beast known as your "personal life," because that might conflict with someone else's desires - no matter how insane - and thus cause offense and loss of business. Finally, you can't ever suggest that the way we do things - liberalism - is in error, because it's clearly a "good" thing and also a socially-accepted one. Keep these ideas in your head, and soon it won't be worth fighting and you'll give in to the flow. You will have become your parents. 7663.9789041607

BlogTerrorist said...

What did one gay sperm say to another?
"How do we find an egg in all of this shit?"

What does GAY really stand for?
Got Aids Yet?

How do you know that you have walked into a homosexual church service?
Only half the congregation are kneeling!

How many faggots does it take to put in a light bulb?
Only one.
but it takes an entire emergency room to remove it!

What is the first symptom of AIDS?
An extreme pain in the ass!

What's the definition of tender love?
Two faggots with hemorrhoids!

Two really sick faggots were visiting the zoo,
when they found themselves at the gorilla cage.
The gorilla was sitting there with a huge erection.
Unable to contain himself the first queer reaches
inside the cage and tries to touch the huge cock.
As soon as arm goes into the cage the gorilla grabs him,
takes him into the cage, slams him on the floor and fucks him senseless.
A few days later in hospital the fag's boyfriend visits him and said, "Does it hurt?"
"Hurt? Hurt?" cried out the raped faggot, "Of course it hurts.
He hasn't phoned and he hasn't written�!"

How do you get four faggots to share one bar stool?
Turn it upside down and hand them a bucket of grease!

What do call a queer who doesn't have AIDS?
A lucky cocksucker!

How do faggots spell relief?
N-O-A-I-D-S!

What is a shit?
A faggots wet dream!

What does AIDS stand for?
Asshole Injected Death Sentence!

How can you tell if a household is homosexual?
The welcome mat reads 'Please wipe Your Knees!'

What do you call two faggots on a waterbed?
A fruit float!

Why are faggots always the first out of burning buildings?
Because they already have their shit packed!

Why can't scientist's discover a cure for AIDS?
Because they can't get the laboratory mice to fuck each other up the ass!

What do you call a fag dentist?
The tooth fairy of course!

Two queers are in a hot tub pushing a big turd back and forth in the water. Another fag walked in and asked, "What the hell are you two doing?"
"We are teaching our baby how to swim!"

What's a homosexual masochist?
A sucker for punishment!

Two faggots were on a sunny beach. The first one said, "Shall I put the umbrella up?" "Yes," replied the second homo, "But don't open it, I'm a bit sore!"

What do you call a fag bar with no stools?
A fruit stand!

If three faggots are in bed together what do you call the one in the middle?
A double adapter!

What do you call the foreskin on a faggot?
Mudflaps!

How can you tell if a bank robber is a faggot?
He ties up the safe and blows the Security Guard!

What happened when three faggots attacked a woman?
Two of them held her down and the other did her hair!

Did you hear about the two fags who had an argument in a gay bar?
They went outside and exchanged blows!

Why did the faggot think his boyfriend was cheating on him?
Because he kept coming home shitfaced!

What's the worst thing a straight guy can say in a gay bar?
Can you push my stool in please?!

Why was the queer sacked from his job in the sperm bank?
He was caught drinking on the job!

What do you give a queer with AIDS for Christmas?
Cancer!

Two sick fags were taking a shower with each other.
The phone rings and Lance says to Rod,
"I will be right back darling, so don't start without me!"
After a minute or so Lance comes back,
and sees cum splattered all over the shower wall.
"I thought I told you not to start without me!"
replied Rod, "I didn't start without you, I just farted!"

What's the greatest thing about AIDS?
It can turn a fruit into a vegetable!

What do you call a fag milkman?
A dairy queen!

An obviously gay guy swished onto a bus to face a derogatory sneer from the massive bus driver.
"Faggot! growled the driver, "Where's your pearls?"
"Pearls with corduroy?" shrieked the gay, "Are you mad!"

What do fags call hemorrhoids?
Speed bumps!

How do you know you're at a gay BBQ?
The hotdogs taste like shit!35745.6862803515

BlogTerrorist said...

The Paradox of Individuality:


The roots of modernity stem from the importance placed in the individual above all else. Modern society places emphasis on society as a collection of individuals, rather than on society as a unit of smaller pieces reaching for a goal much as an organism is created out of organs working towards a single goal- sustaining the existence of the whole. Because of this focus on the pieces, fragmented and separated from the whole, consensus can never be achieved, except to the lowest possible values- comfort mainly, as seemingly all other popular values, whether in a physical sense as drives most consumerism, or in a mental sense, as in entertainment and illusions of personal importance, which act to cause the one enjoying them to cease thinking about issues of mortality or accomplishment (or, more specifically, lack thereof).



In order for this happy impotence to continue existing, it requires that every individual be given not only the mental comfort outlined above, but none to excel in any meaningful way, for that would be implying that not everybody is equal, and would shatter the blissful numbness. Echoes of "Brave New World" and "Paradise Lost" should be ringing loudly in the reader's head right now; in guaranteeing comfort and a comfortable self-esteem for all, it stifles all potential towards anything other than mediocrity.



The reason that this goes unnoticed by most people is because of the adornments to one's affectation that this system allows. Every person can choose to put on a different superficial role, their own dysfunction, while acting like everyone else. They can choose to buy the Britney Spears CDs because of their complete faith in blind hedonism to lead them through any situation, or they can buy their favorite album from Linkin Park to demonstrate their unfocused anger. At their root, though, they're engaging in the same action- purchasing a plastic product to demonstrate their "uniqueness" for playing this role, which will be forgotten and thrown away within a few months (popular music aims at expressing nothing other than base, meaningless sentiments, and thus is wholly disposable and similar).



Most people, being unable to create great works or take action towards a cause in any form, love this form of individuality because it allows them to think that they're an individual without having to exert any sort of effort to distance themselves from the norm; it allows them to be equally important to the person who writes great symphonies, or is the greatest warrior, despite their complete lack of distinction. Thus, they create mobs which operate wholly to provide a place for the individual's sense of ego, and harshly attack all that pose some threat to their sense of self importance; which happens to be basically anyone who has some distinction in their merit, rather than the role that they play and call a "personality". Thus, the paradox of individuality is revealed; through holding up the concept of the individual above all else, it forces everyone to be the same, undistinguished person.
86282.1766165515

BlogTerrorist said...

02/26/2005 Technology: Typical Macintosh User
Like everything else in this inane time, computer marketing is a lie. Apple doesn't sell you a computer, they sell you a lifestyle, of tolerance and freestylin' it your own way, as it's more important to be dramatic about your self than to do anything important with life...

71341.1143696322

BlogTerrorist said...

How do you get a Mexican woman pregnant?
Jizz in her shoes, and let the flies do the rest!

How many Mexicans does it take to grease an axle?
One if you hit 'em just right.

How many Mexicans does it take to grease a combine?
It all depends upon how fast you run them through.

Why is a Spic like a Skunk?
Because they're half black and half white, and smell like shit.

Why doesn't the state of Texas electrocute Mexican prisoners anymore?
Grease fires are too hard to put out.

Why do niggers put their garbage out in clear plastic bags?
So Mexicans can window shop.

What's the difference between a cue ball and an illegal immigrant?
The harder you hit them, the more English you get out of them.

Why don't niggers marry Mexicans?
Their kids would be too lazy to steal!

Why doesn't Mexico ever host the Olympics?
Because all the Mexicans that can run, jump,
and swim are in America already.

What do you call a Mexican without a lawn mower?
Unemployed

There is a Mexican, a nigger and an Asian in a car, who is driving?
The Cop!

Why doesn't Mexico have a NAVY?
Because cardboard don't float.

Why is it wrong to push a car off a cliff with three Mexicans in it? Because you can fit five?

What's a Mexican fortune cookie?
A taco shell with food stamps in it.

Why don't whites throw rocks at Mexican driven cars?
Because it might be theirs.

How many Mexicans can you fit in a Pinto?
20
How do you get them in?
Throw in a five dollar bill.
How do you get them out?
Throw in a job application

What do you call a Mexican baptismal?
Bean dip
What do you call a Mexican being baptized?
Bean dip.
What do you call 5000 Mexican's in a pool?
Bean dip

Why do Mexicans have mustaches?
They want to be like their moms!

Where do u hide cash from a Mexican?
Under the soap!

Why do Mexicans drive low riders?
So they can pick lettuce while they cruise

How do you know how many Mexicans are in a Safeway?
Count the Pintos and multiply by 20.

Why were there only 3000 Mexicans at the Alamo?
They only had 4 cars.

What do you call a Mexican in a two-story house?
Adopted.

Who's the richest person in Mexico?
The one that gets it.....

How do you take a census in Mexico?
Throw in a bar of soap and count the number of people running away.

How do you count the population of Mexico?
Roll a quarter down the street and count the people running after it.

What did the Mexican kid down the block get for his birthday? The bike you threw out 3 weeks ago.

Know why Mexican women wear long dresses?
To hide the bug strips. [Picture]

Why did the Mexicans fight so hard to take the Alamo?
So they could have four clean walls to write on.

Why do Mexican girls wear panties?
To keep their ankles warm.

What's the most confusing day for a Mexican?
Father's Day!

How do you tell a Mexican girl from a Jewish girl?
A Mexican girl's jewelry is fake, but her orgasms are real.

What do you call a pregnant Mexican?
Bean Bag.
What do you call an old Mexican woman?
Bean bag

How many spics does it take to have a bath?
Five, one to lie in the tub and four to spit on him.

Why don't Mexicans play hide and seek?
Because no one will look for them.

Why do Mexicans have re-fried beans?
Have you ever heard of a Mexican doing anything right the first time?

How can you tell a Mexican airline?
It's the one with hair under the wings.

What do you get when you cross a Mexican with an octopus?
I don't know but it sure can pick lettuce.

Why can't spics be firefighters?
They can't tell Jose from hose B.

Q: How do you give a mexican a concussion?
A: Smash his head with the toilet seat while he's drinking.

Q: Why do flies have wings?
A: To beat the mexicans to the trash can.

Q: How many mexican's does it take to grease a car?
A: Just one if you hit him right.

Q: Why did the mexicans have to move out of the house?
A: Because they couldn't figure out how to flush the pool.

Q: How many cops does it take to arrest a mexican?
A: Ten. 1 to hold the mexican, and 9 to hold the oranges.

Q: Why do mexicans buy Cabbage Patch dolls?
A: Because they come with birth certificates.

Q: Why don't mexicans have any Olympic teams?
A: Because all the mexicans who can run, jump, and swim are over here.

Q: Why is there so little great mexican literature?
A: Spray paint wasn't invented until 1950.

Q: Why is the average age of the mexican army 40?
A: Because they take them right out of high school.

Q: What are the three most difficult years in a mexicans life?
A: Second grade.

Q: What do you call a mexican without a lawnmower?
A: Unemployed.

Q: What is a mexican's favorite sport?
A: Boxing... Boxing oranges!

Q: What do you call a building full of mexicans?
A: Jail.

Q: Why did the mexican cross the road?
A: To get from the gas station to the orange groves.

Q: How do you fit 100 mexicans in a phone booth?
A: Throw in a food stamp.

Q: How do you get them out?
A: Throw in a bar of soap.

Q: What do you call a taco with a food stamp inside it?
A: A mexican fortune cookie.

Q: What's the slowest thing in the world?
A: A mexican funeral precession with only 1 set of jumper cables.

Q: Who's the best man at a mexican wedding?
A: The guy with the jumper cables.

Q: Why don't they teach driver's education and sex education on the same day in
Mexico?
A: They don't want to wear out the donkey.

Q: Why do mexicans wear sombreros?
A: So they have a place to put their taco when they are stealing your hubcaps.

Q: Why do mexican's drive lowriders?
A: So they can pick the cabbage.

Q: Why do they have hydraulics?
A: When all the cabbage is gone, they can then pick apples.

Q: What do you say to a mexican in uniform?
A: I'll have a big mac, coke and fries.

Q: What do you call sex with a mexican?
A: Rape.

Q: Why don't mexicans have barbecues?
A: Because the beans keep falling through the Grill!

Q: Why do mexicans have re-fried beans?
A: Have you ever heard of a Mexican doing anything right the first time?

Q: What's the name of Mexico's telephone company?
A: "Taco Bell."

Q: A mexican spent one whole hot day mowing the lawn, why couldn't he go inside the
house and grab a sip of water?
A: It wasn't his house.

Q: Who's the best man at a Mexican wedding?
A: The guy with the jumper cables.

Q: Did you hear about the two mexicans on "That's Incredible"?
A: One had auto insurance and the other was an only child.

Q: Why do mexicans eat beans?
A: So they can have a bubble bath.

Q: How do you know that Superman isn't mexican?
A: Because he would steal wheels off air planes if he was.

Q: Why do most mexican men have mustaches?
A: Because they want to look like their mothers.

Q: How can you tell a mexican airline?
A: It's the one with hair under the wings.

Q: Why don't mexicans like blow jobs?
A: They don't like ANY kind of jobs.

Q: What do you call a mexican with an IQ of 176?
A: A village.

Q: What do you call a mexican paratrooper?
A: Instant air pollution.

Q: How many mexicans does it take to grease a car?
A: Just one if you hit him right.

Q: What do you get when you cross a mexican with an octopus?
A: I don't know but it sure can pick lettuce.

Q: Why are scientists breeding mexicans instead of rats for experiments?
A: They multiply faster and you don't get as attached to them.


There were three construction workers, one was mexican, one was English, and the other
was polish. They were on the high scaffolding of the building they were building, and they
were eating lunch. The Mexican looked in his lunch, and said,"A taco, if I get a taco one
more time I'm going to jump off this building!"
The English guy looked in his lunch, and said,"Crumpets, if I get crumpets one more time
I'm going to jump off this building!"
Then the Polish guy looked in his lunch and said,"Polish sausage, if I get this sausage one
more time I'm going to jump off of this building!"
The next day they all got the same lunch, and they all jumped off the building, and died.
At the funeral the Mexican's wife said,"If he would have told me he didn't want tacos I
would have made him something different."
Then the English guy's wife said,"If he would have told me he didn't want crumpets I
would have made him something else."
Then the Polish guy's wife said,"I don't understand, he made his own lunch."

A Mexican tried to get into the United States. He was stopped at the
border and questioned as to why he wanted in this country and how long
he would stay.
He told them that he wanted to live there and become a citizen. The
officer said, "Okay, if you use yellow, pink, and green in a sentence, I
will let you in."
The Mexican thought and thought. He finally said, "The telephano goes
green, green, green. So I pink it up and say 'yellow'!"

Q: What do you call four Puerto Ricans in quicksand?
A: Quatro cinco

Q: What do you call a Mexican hitchiker ?
A: El Paso

Q: What do you call a Mexican baptism?
A: Bean dip

Q: What's a "feel-up"?
A: It's what you get at a Mexican gas station.

Q: What do you get when you cross an Arab with a Mexican?
A: Oil of Ole'

Q: What do you call a Texan?
A: A Mexican who ran out of gas going to Oklahoma

Ever hear of the redneck who thought that "Manual Labor" was the new
Mexican President?

Q: What is six miles long and moves five miles an hour?
A: A Mexican funeral with only one set of jumper cables

There are two Mexicans are talking. One is a new resident of
the town. The first Mexican says to the other,"Hey, vato, this
town is pretty rough. All the Mexicans know how to fight. So
watch your back."

The other Mexican replies,"I don't need to worry, because I know
Mexican Judo." And the first Mexican asks, "What's Mexican Judo?"
The second says, "Ju don't know if I have a gun; Ju don't know if
i have a knife. . ."

A Russian, a Mexican and a Texan are all sitting around a
campfire.
The Russian pulls out a bottle of Vodka, slams it down, throws
it up in the air and shoots it. He announces to his companions,
"There is plenty of Vodka in Russia."
The Mexican takes out a bottle of Tequila. He slams it, throws
it up in the air and shoots it. He turns to the Russian and
says, "there's plenty of Tequila in Mexico."
The Texan takes his good ole american bottle of beer, slams it
down, throws it up in the air and shoots the Mexican. He turns
to the Russian and says, "there's to many Mexicans in Texas!"

Juan comes up to the Mexican border on his bicycle. He's got two large
bags over his shoulders. The guard stops him and says, "What's in the
bags?"
"Sand," answered Juan.
The guard says, "We'll just see about that. Get off the bike." The guard
takes the bags and rips them apart. He empties them out and finds nothing
in them but sand. He detains Juan overnight and has the sand analyzed,
only to discover that there is nothing but pure sand in the bags.
The guard releases Juan, puts the sand into new bags, hefts them onto the
man's shoulders, and lets him cross the border.
A week later, the same thing happens. The guard asks, "What have you got?"
"Sand," says Juan.
The guard does his thorough examination and discovers that the bags contain
nothing but sand. He gives the sand back to Juan, and Juan crosses the
border on his bicycle.
This sequence of events if repeated every day for three years. Finally,
Juan doesn't show up one day and the guard meets him in a Cantina in
Mexico.
"Hey, Buddy," says the guard, "I know you are smuggling something. It's
driving me crazy. It's all I think about. I can't sleep. Just between you
and me, what are you smuggling?"
Juan sips his beer and says, "Bicycles."

Q: What's the national anthem of Puerto Rico?
A: "Attention K-Mart shoppers..."

Q: What did you name the offspring of a blonde and a Puerto Rican?
A: Retardo.

A high ranking official from the Clinton Administration was invited to
speak at a banquet tendered by the Don Q Rum Corp. in Puerto Rico.
The man delivered his speech nobly, but for one fatal flaw. He persisted in
referring to his hosts as the "makers of that wonderful Bacardi rum."
Every time he mentioned the competing name "Bacardi", an official from
Don Q would jump up and correct him saying, "Don Q, senor, Don Q!"
The smiling Clinton aide would answer, "You're welcome."

Q. What do you get when you cross a mexican and an italian?
A. A guy who makes an offer you can't understand

Q. Why do mexicans have noses?
A. For something to pick in the winter time

Q. Why did they cancel drivers ed. in mexico?
A. The donkey died

Q. What did the mexican do with his first 50 cent piece?
A. He married her

Q. Why do mexicans eat refried beans?
A. Ever see a mexican that didn't screw things up the first time
or
so they can take a bubble bath at night

Q. How many mexicans does it take to grease a car?
A. Just one if you hit him right

Q. What do you get when you cross a mexican with an octopus?
A. I don't know but it sure picks tomatoes

Q. Why are scientists breeding mexicans instead of rats for experiments?
A. They multiply faster and you don't get as attached to them

Q. What do you get when you cross a mexican and a vietnamese?
A. A car thief that can't drive

Q.Did you hear about the two mexicans on that's incredible?
A. One had auto insurance and the other one was an only child

Q: Why did the Mexican throw his wife off the cliff?
A: TEQUILA

-There is an American, a German, and a Mexican.
They are in all in a boat.
The boat is about to sink.
Each of them have to throw things out to make the boat lighter!
The German throws out 4 cases of beer and says:
"We have a lot of bear in Germany so we don't need these!"
The Mexican throws out 5 cases of burritos and says:
"We have a lot of burritos in Mexico so we don't need these!"
The American grabs the Mexican and throws him out.
The German asks why he threw the Mexican out.
And the American replies:
"We have a lot of Mexicans in America so we don't need him!.
-There was a German, an American, and a Mexican.

They were walking in the woods.
Suddenly a heard of buffalo came at them.
They ran and ran until they saw a shack and went in it.
2 days later the buffalo left.
The men got out of the shack only to find layers of crap everywhere!
They were forced to jump in because there was no way out.
The German took a leap and said,
" It's not bad, it's only up to my waist. "
The American took a leap and said,
" It's not bad, it's only up to my knees. "
Then the Mexican took a leap and said,
" It's not bad, it's only up to my ankles. "
The American asked, " How did you do that. "
The Mexican replied in a muffled voice, " I jumped in head first. "

-Why do Mexicans re-fry their beans?
Have you seen a Mexican do anything right the first time?

-Why do Mexicans eat Tomales for Christmas?
So they have something to unwrap

-What are the first three words in every Mexican cookbook?
"Steal a chicken..."

A Britisher, a Frenchman, a Mexican and a Texan were on a small
plane. All of a sudden the engine sputtered and they realized
that they had to lighten the load or else all would die. Only one
could stay on the plane, so they drew straws and the Mexican got
to stay.
The British fellow steps to the door, yells "God save the Queen!"
and jumps out.
The Frenchman goes to the door, places his hat over his heart,
yells "Viva la France!" and jumps out.
The Texan gets up, hollers "Remember the Alamo!" and pushes the
Mexican out.

Q: Why didn't Mexico have an Olympic national team at NAGANO?
A: Because everyone who could run, jump, or swim has already crossed the border.

WHAT DO YOU CALL A MEXICAN WITH A
VASECTOMY?
A dry Martinez.16199.1326910616

BlogTerrorist said...

02/26/2005 Technology: Typical Macintosh User
Like everything else in this inane time, computer marketing is a lie. Apple doesn't sell you a computer, they sell you a lifestyle, of tolerance and freestylin' it your own way, as it's more important to be dramatic about your self than to do anything important with life...

23743.7246959618

BlogTerrorist said...

School District to recognize "Ebonics" as a foreign language

7/21/05 - UPI

It used to be called Jive.

A series of slang words grouped together in primitive ways that is spoken by the lowest of evolved humanoids.

Then one alleged educator renamed jive 'ebonics' to somehow
grant respectability to this nigger noise.

Now A school district in Southern California has approved the affirmation and recognition of Ebonics into its curriculum in an
attempt to help the less evolved students improve academic performance.

The San Bernardino Board of Education says a pilot of the policy, known as the Students Accumulating New Knowledge Optimizing Future Accomplishment Initiative, has been implemented at
two city schools.

'Ebonics' or nig-bonics, was recognized as a separate language by the nigger fools at the Oakland, California school board in 1996.

Although the program is aimed at coon students, other students can choose to participate.

Ratibu Jacocks, a member of a coalition of black 'activists' - the Westside Action Group - said they are working with the district to ensure the policy is implemented appropriately.

He welcomes the idea of other ethnic groups lobbying for their own program. "When you are doing what's right, others will follow,' Jacocks said. "We have led the way before the civil-rights movement opened the door for women's rights and other movements."

(How about A White Civil Rights Movement? Why not A special program for German children to embrace their culture?
Is it racist for whites to have special programs but not for Blacks?)

The Minuteman(militiaman) project

7/20/05 - AP

(Communists and other leftist scum claim that the Minutemen
are racist even though they will let anyone participate regardless
of race. Extremist's use this ploy regularly to demonize whatever
they don't like. These guys are about as racist as Bush is smart;
and we should know!)

The minuteman Project is an volunteer movement that vows to guard the United States from the wave of brownskin Spic Scum. Some of the minutemen are nonwhite like Carl Whitaker who runs the Tennessee Volunteer Minutemen. Carl is an subhuman injun who
works to expose those who employ illegal aliens.

At least 40 groups opposing illegal immigration have popped up nationally, inspired by the Minuteman Project that rallied hundreds
this year to patrol the Mexican border in Arizona.

President Boy George has called the movement vigilantism.

The Minuteman Project itself has generated chapters in 18 states, from California to Utah, Minnesota and Maine. The Tennessee group and others like it have no direct affiliation but share a common goal.

At the Department of Homeland Security, whose authority includes patrolling borders and enforcing immigration laws, response to Minuteman-type activism is reserved.

"Homeland security is a shared responsibility, and the department believes the American public plays a critical role in helping to defend the homeland," agency spokesman Jarrod Agen said from Washington. "But as far doing an investigation or anything beyond giving us a heads-up, that should be handled by trained law enforcement."

Non whites and commies attack the Minutemen

7/20/05 - Newswire

Jim Gilchrist the founder of The Minuteman Project experienced the worst of America. He witnessed the literal siege of VFW Post #2080 by about 60 belligerent, death-threatening mud animals twice July 16th. The Caucasian-hating members of the subhuman organization known as the Mexican brown berets, stormed the VFW Lodge, damaging signs and other property. They were eventually repelled
by the late-arriving San Diego County Sheriff's Dept.

No arrests were made.

The rampage was orchestrated by Armando Navarro, a known Spic commie, who holds a comfortable, taxpayer funded, tenured position as a professor at the University of California - Riverside, Ca., and who has devoted his life to promoting the Spic conquest of the seven southwestern US states. He calls for the conquest to be carried
out by gunpoint, if necessary.

One California Minuteman volunteer, Jim Woods, was physically assaulted by a gang of ten of Navarro's thugs as he sat in his car alone at a border outpost. He was physically restrained in his car seat by the brown berets, who threatened to kill him. They stole his keys from the ignition and left him stranded without food or water for several hours. When Jim Woods identified two of the gang members to the Sheriff's Dept. and asked for an arrest, no action was taken by the Sheriff's deputies. One deputy just responded to Mr. Wood's plea for help with "Oh, you just lost your keys," despite repeated pleas to the contrary from Mr. Woods.

Forced crackdown on Illegals incite governors to issue threat

7/19/05 - Associate Press

Fees for a new driver's license have been threatened to triple.
Lines at motor vehicles offices could stretch out the door.

(The sky is falling!)

Governors threatened that states and consumers would get screwed because of the push to turn Drivers licenses into a national ID card.

The new federal law called the REAL ID Act was passed in
June as part of an $82 billion military spending bill.

By 2008, states must begin to verify whether license applicants are American citizens or legal residents of the United States.

Ideally this will prevent states from handing out drivers licenses to any illegal alien that applies. Many states like Oregon hand out drivers licenses without verifying citizenship. Once you have a license
(which is really your government ID card) you then have de facto citizenship.

That deadline brought the first question in a closed-door session between governors and federal officials on homeland security
Monday at the National Governors Association meeting.

The two groups also talked about pressures on National Guard troops, and steps to better integrate state and local law enforcement with federal efforts to prevent terrorist attacks, governors said as they wrapped up their summer meeting.

After meeting privately with governors, Homeland Security Jewboy
Michael Chertoff said the new law could create opportunities to protect people against identity theft. He also offered assurances that his agency would work cooperatively with states. "What we want is to find a common plan that works for everybody, but we'll also take into account the natural differences states have," Chertoff said.

Democrat Bill Richardson of New Mexico said "denying illegal immigrants a driver's license just makes it harder for government
and law enforcement to keep track of them. New Mexico allows illegal aliens to get Drivers licenses. "

(Why don't we just seal the damned borders with electrified fences and minefields? If Ariel Sharon can fence in the Palestinians in
in palestine, why can't be be allowed we fence in our country? Next the government should find the Spics here and bring them home:
either on a bus in they go along willingly or in a box if they resist.
We wouldn't have to keep track of the Beanors or worry about them being uninsured motorists if they were back in the turd-world where their slime belongs!)

Iraqi war continues out of control

7/17/05 - Aljazerra

Deadly violence across Iraq continues, leaving more than 100
people dead and nearly 300 wounded in bombings since 7/14.

Attacks in Baghdad on Sunday morning claimed the lives of 10 people, including five members of the Iraqi security forces, after
police convoys were bombed, an Interior Ministry official said.

The attacks follow Saturday's devastating bombing at the southern town of al-Musayyib, when a man detonated himself near a tanker of liquefied gas, killing at least 70 people and wounding 95, according to hospital sources.

The explosion also set the central square, cars and shops ablaze.

The first attack on Sunday killed two policemen and one civilian
in the eastern New Baghdad neighborhood, police 1st Lieutenant Muhammad Jasim said. Seven policemen and one civilian were also wounded, some seriously.

About an hour later a second car bomb exploded near a police convoy near the Bayaa bus station in southern Baghdad, killing three police commandos and four civilians, police Captain Talib Thamir said. Three civilians were also injured in that blast.

"I was 100 meters away when I saw the fireball. It was enormous... People were burning in their cars. We had to get them out with hooks," said Khodr Abbas.

"I saw women in the burning houses crying for help and we couldn't do a thing," he said.

One of those injured, Ammar al-Karaguili, 40, said he saw disparate parents throwing their children out of windows and from balconies to escape the inferno.

In other violence, a US soldier was killed and two more wounded by an improvised explosive device in the northern Kirkuk province of Iraq, the US military said.

This brought to 1757 the number of US military personnel killed in
Iraq since the March 2003 invasion: according to a tally based on
the slanted Pentagon figures.

KKK Leader: 1979 Shootings Were Self Defense

7/17/05 - Fox Jews

A former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan took the stand at a public hearing Saturday and said those who fired on people at a "Death to the Klan" march more than 25 years ago did so in self-defense.

Five people were killed at the Nov. 3, 1979 rally.

"To tell the truth, if you look at the evidence and see what happened,
it was all self-defense," said Gorrell Pierce. "Everybody was participating in a riot."

Pierce, a former Grand Dragon of the Federated Knights of the KKK, spoke at public hearing held by the Greensboro "Truth and Reconciliation Commission".

The "commission" is investigating the deaths at the march organized by the Communist Workers Party that ended when members of the Klan and the American Nazi Party opened fire.

Leaders in Greensboro, a city of 223,000 in central North Carolina, fear the hearings will rekindle old animosities, but organizers hope to uncover what they feel is the untold story behind the shootings and promote healing.

Pierce said fighting between marchers and Klan members ended in shooting because Communists tried to pull a 79-year-old Klansman out of his car and younger Klansmen came to his aid.

He said he had ordered members of his Klan faction not to attend the march. "I regretted it the day it happened," said Pierce.

Several Klansmen were acquitted of murder charges at a state trial. In 1984, federal prosecutors failed to win a conviction against Virgil Griffin, a Klan member from suburban Charlotte who was acquitted of conspiracy to interfere with a federal investigation. Griffin was scheduled to testify later Saturday.

The shootings followed a clash earlier that year between Communists and Klansmen when the Klan showed the film "Birth of a Nation" in nearby China Grove, Pierce said. At the movie, anti-Klan demonstrators confronted them so closely "you could feel each
other's breath," he said.

11 Soldiers Charged in US torture Incidents

7/16/05 - Associated Press

BlogTerrorist said...

02/26/2005 Technology: Typical Macintosh User
Like everything else in this inane time, computer marketing is a lie. Apple doesn't sell you a computer, they sell you a lifestyle, of tolerance and freestylin' it your own way, as it's more important to be dramatic about your self than to do anything important with life...

52080.643754578

BlogTerrorist said...

Postmorality

If there is one thing humanity needs to hear right now, it is this: "Grow up!" However, this is not the
form of maturity of which is commonly spoken, by which they mean a certain docility and resignation that
allows one to call a job and servitude to social prestige a meaningful life. The usage here refers to the
ultimate maturity, which is an ability to accept reality in all of its positive and negative dimensions,
and resolve to act upon it as is necessary.

We could call this ultimate maturity "realism," because when all the semantic arguments are brushed
aside, and all the ontological concerns shown to be aspects of the same question, we realize that most of
human discourse centers on objects of perception without stopping, first, to form a comprehensive system.
Since there is no explanation for our world as a whole, what replaces logic is an ability to analyze
details intently, without ever discovering the interconnection between data.

This basic failing is akin to us as humans selecting to believe only that which originates in a human
mind, and to relegate reality - the interaction of beings, natural forces, and objects in our physical
real-time world - to second-class status. Whether we pick materialism or dualism, both extremes serve us
badly by taking our attention away from an observation of life and pointing it toward arbitrary
linguistic problems that do not necessarily related to reality.

As such, realism is the king of all scientific outlooks, and herein is its paradox: although we all live
in the same world, not all have the fineness of perceptual analysis to understand realism. Most people
not only "would prefer to" cling to stolid absolutes that require no interpretation or context to be
applied, but also cannot conceive of any other form of belief system. It is only in our recent (400
years) mania for new customers to not offend that we have made the presumption that all people, if "given
the same advantages," can understand the same complex thoughts.

Thus we have a troubling situation, onto which another is rapidly piled: a nearly indefinable belief
based upon a reality in which we all live, but which we perceive to different degrees. Luckily, nature
makes this easy for us, and the best-bred among us are the ones who - owing to greater intelligence,
health and moral character - are able to perceive not only what is, in an immediate sense, but its
function, even over time. These are realists who often move to the next level, which is idealism.

Idealism in the vernacular means something different from philosophical idealism; in philosophical
idealism, one suggests that the world is (a) composed of thought or (b) operates in a similar method to
thought; the two are roughly conflatable, in that if the world operates as thoughts, on the high level of
abstraction at which philosophy works, it might as well be thought. Still, even the most spacy of the
idealists affirm realism as the basis for their idealism. How does this work?

What we call science is the process of deducing structural functions to our world, and then using those
to in turn predict responses to certain events or actions. When we understand how our world works
(realism), we can then turn toward the question of its manipulation (idealism), which is subdivided into
questions of how, which relate directly to our degree of realistic perception, and why, which are more
akin to the goal-setting tendencies of idealism. Realism is perception; idealism is a study of design
both in perception and moral action.

Of course, balancing these two ideas is quite a challenge for almost anyone, and only the smarter ones
among us can do it - but among Indo-Europeans, this is not as small of a population as one might think.
Although the dumbest among us make themselves known as the loudest, there is usually a silent group who
function at a high level of efficiency and care deeply about doing the right thing; these however lack
the impetus to draw attention to themselves, as they already understand a spiritual principle by which
self is secondary to whole. These people understand the secret of nihilism.

Unlike most philosophical systems, which are based on achieving an ideal or asserting a value as higher
than others, nihilism is a discipline. It's a way of training your mind to look at the world, and from
it, as in any fully-developed philosophical system, comes an explanation of the entirety of philosophy as
opened for us by the initial realizations of nihilism. Once again, it's not for everyone; if you don't
get it, you might not be ready, and many among us will never be ready, as they literally lack the
circuitry to understand it. Much as you cannot educate a kitchen blender into a supercomputer, you cannot
make a philosophical genius out of the average mind.

Nihilism seems a paradox. It denies all value, thus obliterating the objective/subjective and mind/body
divisions favored by dualists, yet it upholds the idea of abstract structure ("design") behind our
cosmos, as when one denies value one turns to function, specifically function of the physical world. It
is not, however, materialism, as materialism champions a faith that material comfort and individual
survival are the highest goals that exist; most likely, those who are materialists lack the circuitry to
go further. Nihilism is a form of idealism, in that it posits an order to the universe that can be
understood through logic, but rejects value-judgments as a method of doing this; don't categorize and
classify, suggests nihilism, but describe. Describe structure, not physicality or emotionality.

In this we achieve the beginnings of a fully mature philosophy, something akin to the "pragmatic
idealism" Nietzsche described or the pessimistic Hindu-inspired idealism of Schopenhauer; it is
reminiscent of the beliefs of early Greco-Roman civilizations, where the gods personified natural forces
and were beyond any form of "moral judgment," or classification into good and evil. When the ashes settle
over the last thousand years of Western civilization, it will quickly become clear that moral
classification led us to a kind of linear thought that detached us from a study of systemics, and thus
allowed us to do ludicrously destructive things in the name of details - the individual, an absolute
moral principle, or the need to make some cold hard cash.

One of the best aspects of nihilism and cosmic idealism alike is their rejection of absolute moral
judgments, meaning any type of rule that applies without context and to all people alike. The simplest
example is the hypocrisy over murder in the West; we say murder is wrong, and then murder people for
committing murder. A nihilist avoids the initial error by never saying "murder is wrong," but instead,
electing to murder those who threaten whatever values are held dear. A rapid stratification appears among
human beings at this point, because depending on where we are on the intelligence-moral character scale,
we value different things. Those who are at the higher end of such a scale have valuable opinions, and
the rest... should probably be oppressed.

All philosophical concepts are interrelated, and every philosophical system uses a core concept as an
introduction to all other parts of philosophy; if your system is idealism, for example, you translate all
other philosophical questions into idealist vocabulary, and then analyze them and synthesize responses
from that point. A nihilist system is no different. Nihilism is both radically different from
Christianity, but agrees with it on many points, much as it does with Hinduism and other cosmic idealist
systems. If it has an enemy, it would be the lower-level systems, like materialism and superstition,
which rules out Judaism and Voodoo.

However, any good nihilist does apprehend quickly why in ancient societies the principle of karma/caste
was rapidly attached to a postmoral system: if there is no prohibition against killing, one had better
limit that function to those who know enough to handle it. In the same way we do not give firearms to
three-year-olds, certain privileges must be earned by those who show aptitude and character for them. As
most of the questions of philosophy are complicated enough to take a lifetime, ancient societies tended
to breed people for these roles, thus producing the original definition of aristocracy: the
philosopher-kings and warrior-kings who knew how to wield the power they had.

A modern comparison to this is any form of martial art. The students are taught slowly to take on the
powers of a fully capable fighter, so that alongside raw technique they may absorb years of wisdom - and
be sent away by their teachers if they are psychopaths or otherwise defective. Just as one does not teach
post-911 Arab students to take off in planes but not land them, one does not teach nutcases to kill with
a punch. The caste system is part of this karmic order in that it is recognized that, with each advance
in breeding, the design of the next generation changes; those designs are most likely to function as
their ancestors did. As a result, one creates groups like aristocracies which are bred for the finest
traits and pass them along to their offspring.

This system works surprisingly well. Outside of a few defectives, most people have the abilities of their
parents, if developed by education. Even more importantly, they have the moral inclination and traits of
their parents, and therefore make similar types of decisions. The power of nihilism and postmorality in
ancient societies was kept among those who had for generations proven themselves able to wield it; this
is a more effective system than our modern one, which supposes that "anyone" could be effective with this
kind of power, so we give it to them and hope they don't screw up. Remember that during election year.

What we refer to as postmoralism was designed for elites by breeding, as it is a complex system.
Essentially, traditional "Western" (Judeo-Christian) morality is designed around simple rulesets: evil is
bad, murder is evil, therefore if you murder, you are evil and we should murder you. Postmoral tradition,
as mentioned above, does not waste time banning murder. It asks, simply, was the murder fortunate? which
means: did the murder increase the elegance and graceful function of a natural order? If one has murdered
a child molestor, order is increased and made better; if you murder a child who otherwise would likely
done great things, you are probably a psychopath and should be murdered.

In warfare, for example, murder was viewed as glorious in the idealistic tradition, as those who lost
lives had done so in fulfilment of their place in a natural order, and in doing so, had risen a level in
the karmic cycle by not shirking from what must be done. Even more, victims were sacrifices to the gods
of the nature, and had fulfilled their own role; material fortunes came second to spiritual ones (a
complete reversal of the modern logic). One did not weep for a conquered enemy, but sang for the whole of
nature, as in the growth of better people a more logical order was instituted.

Other examples come to mind. Idealists tended to treat their women better than any other group; they gave
them privileges, had laws against their mistreatment, and tended to murder and mutilate those who
committed rape, incest, and assault in peacetime. In war, it was different; rape of a conquered enemy was
viewed as a chance to increase the breeding potential of that tribe, and was thus a joyful occurrence. If
a warrior with IQ of 140 raped a woman with IQ of 85, the logic went, she received an upgrade (payable in
next generation) of some IQ points, thus all was cool. It's important to note, of course, that idealists
did not engage in world wars for economic and political commodities, thus it's impossible to compare
their actions to those of a modern time.

Another example is money. For those who deserved money as a means of achieving their function, it was
viewed as a natural right and something not to be questioned; for those who did not have such a use, it
was seen as suspect to care too much about it. If you have enough to live and retire, what is the need
for desiring more? - they viewed it in the same way our current society views people who spend their
entire income on pornography and lubricant: obsessive. Money was something granted by the gods for a
purpose, not a purpose in itself, as it is in modernity.

Unfortunately, this system was replaced with a one-size-fits-all system, in which postmoral rules cannot
apply, because they must apply to everyone, equally, in order to be "fair." As one might guess, such a
system was not created by the few highly intelligent ones, but by the masses of unstable and
unspecialized people who inherently fear those who might be more capable than they. The masses won by
numbers, and overwhelmed their leaders and aristocracy, and that brought us the downfall of Greece, of
Rome, and the future downfall of America. It also brought us absolute moral judgment and "good"/"evil."

Now that America has run its course, and it has become clear to even liberals that the system is
collapsing under its own weight and paradox, the idea of a postmoral society is again considered. And, as
all concepts are linked, people are again considering the concept of an aristocracy of our most capable
to wield the kind of unfettered power that such a civilization allows. Creating rigid moral rules, and
then having checks and balances on leaders, hasn't worked; not only has corruption flourished, but we've
been unable to make necessary long-term decisions.

While our system is reassuring to those who fear they are inadequate, it has traded sanity for the
accomodation of those who are defective or underperforming, and not surprisingly, the results have been
terrible. This is why humanity needs to "Grow up!" and realize that we're not all equal, and we need some
qualified leaders fast, before we make ourselves miserable and then in short order, exterminate ourselves
and all that we care about. To take that step, we need to go down the winding path from realism to
idealism through nihilism, and in doing so, to cultivate in ourselves a new maturity.
71026.6256950354

BlogTerrorist said...

Progress versus Getting it Right

A short note on the nature of life: all of what goes on in the human mind is pure creation, construction,
words and symbols and designs used to describe something that exists outside of our minds. That doesn't
mean that it isn't an objectively-functioning world out there; try putting your hand in a moving blender
and you'll see the world is very consistent in its actions. However, this world is sometimes maintained
by some very spacy ideas, like chaos theory or cosmic idealism, and may not even be "real" in any sense
of physical matter existing. However, insofar as events go on in it, it is "real" and you are subject to
the forces of its reality.

Being able to understand both the unreality of life, and its mundane but effective physicality, is the
essence of what is required to be a realist. Realists do not trouble themselves by trying to explain away
reality with bad science or bad religion. They look at the world, take good as well as bad, and adapt.
This is their ultimate game and goal and it makes sense, if one is a complex organism who cares about
function, to take this course of action.

Fools, on the other hand, either deny significance beyond the material, or assert the existence of some
fantasy world that is either more important than reality or "describes" reality in some way that is
assumed to be important. They confuse our evaluation of the world (mind) with its actuality (body), and
thus we call them dualists, a term that in itself is dual: dualists believe in a world beyond this one,
and most commonly construct it along the lines of mind/body separation. Those of us who are realists are
unitivists: we believe the physical world, our minds, and any significance or values abstracted from
those are part of a contiguous, rational system (although not rational in a linear sense).

Because I am a late-night psychopath reader who likes a good story more than the pretentious crap that
passes for literature of late (two exceptions: Tom Wolfe and William Gibson), I found myself digging into
"Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton. Yes, yes, I know, it's garbage - but only on the surface. Crichton's
goal, since the wildly successful "Andromeda Strain" that kept him from having to practice medicine, has
been to wrap a small amount of adventure around a discussion of scientific implications. Unlike most
scientists, with the possible exception of Carl Sagan, Crichton directs his critical eye not toward the
technology itself but toward its meaning via its effect on the world and our lives.

As such, he's both a brutal cynic, and a breathtaking concept writer, in that he grasps exactly what is
scaring us at any given time and explains it in such a way that those of average or higher IQ can
perceive its strengths and dangers. He's good at not becoming a hysterical liberal, but hasn't yet lapsed
into the complacent "as long as the stock market's still up" attitude of most American/English-style
"conservatives." What's great about this book is that he takes issue with modern society's explosion of
technology, and points out that no one considers the consequences.

Ian Malcolm, a (homosexual) British mathematician, is the voice of the author in this work; not only do
quotes from him introduce each chapter, but his lengthy monologues summarize one of the two major topic
areas of this book. The first, obviously, is genetic engineering - bringing an ancient form back to life.
It is counterbalanced by a study of chaos theory, in which Crichton attempts to explain how natural
systems work. The result shows hard science in the grips of forces its unleashers cannot understand,
namely the tendencies of systems to achieve and lose balance, and this metaphor forms the basis of
Crichton's lesson to modern science.

He uses harsh words for recent epochs. Most technical people and scientists are "thintelligent," Malcolm
says, meaning that they can function well in a high-intensity narrow bandwidth of thought, but are lost
to practical implications or systemic thinking. Crichton uses the words linear thinking several times,
and lambasts the west for adopting this form of thought, although he does not trace it to its
Jewish-Christian roots (Crichton grew up in a Jewish neighborhood in NYC, but seems to be a gentile). He
illustrates this crisis several times through the behavior of his characters, who are always just saying
"Well, now our technology is working again" when some dinosaur comes crashing through the wall and eats a
coworker.

It's a form of subtle comedy usually found in horror movies. Crichton makes his points, however, and
since this writing is not here to review the book, let us move on to the next point: Crichton also makes
a classic error of the type made by scientists and not philosophers, and it's nearly unforgivable. He
posits that linear science is "obsolete," and we need to move on, much as we moved on from medieval
times. In this, he reveals his ignorance by adhering to the progressive fallacy.

Espoused by Hegel, lambasted by Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and anyone else with a brain, the progressive
fallacy is that idea that we are always growing toward a "new" higher state of humankind. You can hear
echoes of this in the dumbshits who, if anything is proposed, state they don't want an existing path but
want something "new." It's also found extensively in media and commerce, which benefits quite a bit from
the automatic assumption that of two things, the newer one is better. In a book excoriating linear
science, how about some words for how stupid linear history is?

If one reads widely enough, and deeply enough, it becomes clear that history is linear only insofar as
our measurement of time is (whether time "really is" linear or not is for another debate - we perceive it
as linear; end of story). According to traditionalists and ancient sources, "history" is a process much
like the lives of individuals, by which civilizations are born, grow old and fat, and finally decay into
sordid collapse. Crichton alludes to a scientific version of this philosophy when he notes that
fluctuations in cotton prices over the last century mirror their vicissitudes during the course of an
average day. Why doesn't he again turn his mirror to history?

The answer is that like most of us moderns, he's well-educated in linear thinking in ways even he, not a
dumb man by any stretch, cannot recognize. He's like Hegel: a well-intentioned innocent who needed to be
more warlike and cruel in his thinking, slicing away the ideas that mostly made sense and replacing them
with ideas that always did. The progressive view of history is with us always, whether in television
commercials or political speeches. It's a convenient way of assuming that no one else has seen what we
have, and that we're "unique" in this time - all of which seems to me to be a way of staving off death.

Even if our technology never occurred on earth before, and our societies have encountered configurations
that did not previously exist, when looked at from a higher-level design analysis, nothing that is
happening now has not happened in the past - and the consequences of our now are just as obvious as they
were for past societies. It's another way of saying that, while the scenery might change, the play
doesn't - the emotions and motivations of the actors are as real in one time as in another. Thus what
ancient Greeks observed is still observable and relevant today, as are observations that are much older.

What Crichton bemoans - our tendency to see the world only through the eyes of science, and thus how we
can change raw materials into some kind of product - has its roots in many things. How to explain that?
Quite simply: it's a lower level of thinking than the enlightened thinking required to see what must be
done. When one gets over the linear model of history, and sees past the "progressive" view, it becomes
clear that there are no "new" thoughts, only thoughts in new contexts with varying degrees of correct and
incorrect adaptation to our situation. This is realism, and only in realism do we find an escape from the
twin barriers of materialism and dualistic idealism.

I could wax on with more philosophical terms, but you can look them up - I recommend the Cambridge
Encyclopedia of Philosophy and an Oxford English Dictionary, for starters (if not, there's SEP). At some
point even talking too much on any topic makes it wanking, as one either is able to see the truth of the
situation, or casting around blindly - more of something (experience, wisdom, intelligence, time) is
needed. Part of what Crichton's saying that is also being said in this article is simply that life is
real, and when we make decisions, we should place the airy logic secondary to a practical view of life as
something in which we live.

Crichton points out that we cannot destroy life on earth, which is a way of saying that, no matter how
much humanity screws up, life will come back, although it will not be as developed as as great as what we
have now; it's a backhanded slam at humanity's recklessness. In saying this, he communicates something
important: we should make the right decisions for our own benefit, as right now, we're in a
self-destructive tailspin of bad values. Having now experienced enough of life, both sane (good) and
insane (destructive), I can say that I prefer sane because destructive values always lead to devolution
and thus more boring existences.

Further, if Crichton ever transcends his linear view of history, he'll come upon a great truth of our
world: to live as a Romantic is the only way to live, and if one is a Romantic, one does not hunger for
"new" things, but for what is eternally true. One does not need the "progressive" view of history in
order to realize that a well-fought battle, a lifelong love, a feast of friends, etc. is an eternally
good - sane, adaptive, evolutionary, logical - thing. We rail against "good" and "evil" because they
remove judgment from practicality into some weird abstraction, and from that we get a progressive view of
history, moving from ancient evil to modern good. I wish the dinosaurs would tear that one down and throw
it into the fires, as humanity would be healthier if in its absence it instead focused on reality.

July 17, 2005
15827.6508122714

BlogTerrorist said...

ANUS hackers devastate crowdist propaganda platforms
"Autonomous" Repeaters of Dogma Retreat

7/26/2005 23:51 PM CST
ANUS News

Despite assurances that the so-called "blogosphere," or network of web logs across the West, is free from
intrusion by established dogma, the majority of blogs unwittingly parrot the doctrine that enables our
society to be the mess that it is. However, in a series of highly-coordinated attacks on Sunday, the ANUS
Infoterror Division struck at the heart of the crowdist decentralized propaganda machine, paralyzing some
of its more newsworthy blogs.

These blogs promoted a devolutionary view of genetics and humanity, subliminally depressing anyone who
came into contact with their neurotic, personally obsessive and solutionless view of history.
Consequently, they like silent cancers worked to destroy all that gives the finer people among us hope,
justifying this constant stream of illusionist propaganda with the notion that not offending society's
lowest members is more important than allowing its highest to reach new altitudes.

ANUS infoterrorist PenisBird struck early in the morning hours, applying his comprehensive knowledge of
scripting to flood crowdist spin-control blogs with meaningless information, as if mocking the brainwash
of meaningless garbage they attempt to stuff into the heads of an unsuspecting populace. After several
rounds of reductive hammering, PenisBird and other infoterrorists were able to not only disable these
blogs, but control many of them.

"On the heels of my semi-victory against racistlosers.blogspot.com, I took on other Blogspot blogs,"
PenisBird wrote on the ANUS messageboard. "It's really easy to find a target. I just open any Slashdot
story with a bunch of comments and search for 'blogspot,'" he said. The ANUS team took only a few hours
to make short work of the weblogs, or "blogs," that in theory provide uncensored and unspun information
as an alternative to mainstream media.

For some years, the American Nihilist Underground Society (ANUS) and its members have recognized that,
whether coming from corporation or government or individual, any rhetoric emerging from modern society
supports the crowdist view. Crowdism favors the undifferentiated individuals of the crowd over any
direction that could possibly offend any of said members, and thus restrains not only proactive handling
of society's problems, but anything which would affirm one member of society as more valuable than any
other, except in the realm of monetary reward, which is equal.

Crowdism as a philosophy has gripped the West for the past millennium, but has begun to show signs of
massive internal failure as a population bred for captivity has experienced as corresponding reduction in
mental capacity and willpower, causing internal decay on all levels of the social system. In contrast to
the form of absolutes that crowdists, who fear death and inequality, require, the nihilists of tomorrow
believe in an idealistic realism which affirms the necessity of applying ascendant ideas within a cosmic
natural order.

The American Nihilist Underground Society, or ANUS, has for over a decade used the Internet to oppose the
ignorance of crowdism through crypto-nihilist messages and activism designed for the few remaining
thinkers in the West to enjoy. Recently, as more people have become dissatisfied with the collapsing
crowdist imposition of absolutist society, organizations such as ANUS have experienced a surge in
membership, much to the dismay of official and unofficial watchers imbued with the illusionary crowdist
philosophy.

About ANUS

The American Nihilist Underground Society advocates nihilism, or a removal of interpretive layers from
our perception of physical reality, as a means of transcending neurotic crowdism and thus achieving
adaptive success. It has been online since 1995 and attracts thousands of readers daily with articles
about philosophy, politics, music and culture. Every major internet filtering service bans anus.com, and
many "anti-hate" organizations decry it as an anti-crowdist site which must be censored and its
perpetrators bankrupted.

http://www.anus.com/

About Nihilism

Nihilism is the belief that nothing we perceive has Absolute value; reality exists, but beyond its
inherent meaning to us as the physical container of our existence, it has no significance outside of what
we perceive. "The world is my representation," indeed. When we strip away all of the values projected
onto physical reality and its outcomes, we are left only with personal ideal and natural ideal, and
bringing the former into adaptation with the latter is the lifetime task to which nihilism is a gateway.

http://www.nihil.org/
41606.3446705108

BlogTerrorist said...

Sure our lives by either quality or quantity. If it was a great steak, we say so and leave it at that; if it was mediocre, we say that sixteen ounces of it for thirty dollars was a "good deal." The quantitative view is most popular because it is accessible to everyone, since only those who are endowed by nature with the sense to know a good steak from a crappy one can tell you its qualitative value. Since most people are not so fortunate, we talk about what a "great deal" it is that you can get something that legally qualifies as steak in prodigious amounts at a low price per pound. This is the essence of democratic liberal free enterprise society, in that it eschews all things which require a higher kind of person and replace them with the kind of assessments even a moron can follow (and congratulate himself for the "good deal" he's getting).

But how does the qualitative work in a society? After all, say the "wise" pundits, wouldn't it be hard to organize a society around qualitative value, since only a few can assess it? This column offers an example in the small. Peer-to-peer file sharing can take many forms, but one of the most common is that of a hub; this is a small community where people exchange files. Normally, to get on a hub, you must have some quantity of files to be shared, and without that, you can be excluded "fairly" because, of course, everyone can see that you need to have a minimum amount of stuff to get on. Like cheap steak, it might be stuff that would only appeal to morons, but it shows you've done the effort and therefore deserve to be on the hub - that's "fair," sensu liberal democracy.

The hub toward which A.N.U.S. contributes, the neoclassical hub, does not operate this way. There is no minimum share size to get on, and there is no reward for having more stuff; instead of quantity, the hub focuses on quality, because unlike liberal democracies it recognizes that unlimited moronic music is not "equal" to a small amount of quality music, no matter how much the average voter can't tell the difference. You can get on the hub right now and start participating, but the admins who periodically peruse shares will eventually check out what you have and -- Slipknot? Cradle of Filth? Pantera? -- those who have moronic music get booted. I frequently get mail from these people, objecting that their ejection was not "fair," and these mails invariably contain the line, "But I had (amount) of share!" These people are used to a quantitative, passive society, where no matter what the quality, as long as you get enough there to put a number in the blank on the form, you're considered part of the club.

Not to say that a hub is a club, of course - a hub is a tool for sharing files, and a social space, as well. But what it is more than anything else is a reflection of the values of those who meet there. People who want to listen to crowd-pleasing music go to the bigger hubs and hang out with other people who like Britney, or cool jazz, or light rock, or even indiscriminate metal and grindcore - what the crowd wants is acceptance for mere quantitative participation, such as the number one (1) - if there is an (1) individual, then it should be equal, and admitted to the club, because - look - it exists, after all. This is what the crowd always desires, which is the paradoxical concept of group participation through pseudo-individuality. You can't tell them their taste in music sucks, because then they'll wail about how they've been wronged and it's not "fair."

For those who have made their way out of the biggest slice of groupthink, it's healthier to find an enclave, or a smaller place where their views are protected from the majority view, which is the quantitative. If you have unending time and nothing better to do, it might appeal to you to listen to all 100,000 death metal, grindcore, black metal and heavy metal bands yet created. More likely, unless you're a retarded invalid, you've got other things to do and so depend on finding the quality stuff through socialization and information resources. Naturally, the crowd will oppose you wherever you try to do this, as they like to believe either (a) that all music is equal or (b) that the most popular music is the best, and therefore you don't need to actually look - just see what they're playing on the radio now; "trust us." The enclave ideal is naturally opposed to that of open to the public group participation.

Any social unit based on this notion of qualitative logic, and eschewing unnecessary quantitative logic, would naturally be a better place to live. Quantitative logic gets you the lowest common denominator, but if you return assessment to that of degree of quality, you instead get only the better efforts. Select the better people to be part of this community; that's inherent to its nature. Let them pick the better art, learning, science and products, and then you've got less garbage (inferior products break frequently, and can rarely be repaired). When they make rules, they don't have to worry about everyone - oh no, fat people in wheelchairs cannot fit into our new library - but those who actually make a difference. To people concerned about quality, the opinions of the mass are not important, and thus they don't have to worry about offending people and can actually tell it like they see it - something you cannot do in our liberal democracy, or you'll be blacklisted and investigated and eventually forced to take a job as a janitor somewhere.

A qualitative society is by nature structured toward building consensus. If you have something of quality, you hold it up as a shining example, and what is agree on is not that we should all have a similar quantity of thing, but that we should all work toward having a similar quality of character, strength, intelligence in ourselves. Since your society only admits people of quality, you don't have to assume that every other person on the street is a moron, and thus can have compassion for random people in society - and have the option to socialize more, since you don't have to first apply a filter to screen out the idiots. This is how society used to be, but it was lost in the populist revolt that demanded we all be equal and have an equal right to quantities of money; see what you've given up, in order to please the crowd? Well - at least on this hub, there's a sliver of what once was, and what, if we work toward it, will be again.
5106.06452941087

BlogTerrorist said...

ANUS hackers devastate crowdist propaganda platforms
"Autonomous" Repeaters of Dogma Retreat

7/26/2005 23:51 PM CST
ANUS News

Despite assurances that the so-called "blogosphere," or network of web logs across the West, is free from
intrusion by established dogma, the majority of blogs unwittingly parrot the doctrine that enables our
society to be the mess that it is. However, in a series of highly-coordinated attacks on Sunday, the ANUS
Infoterror Division struck at the heart of the crowdist decentralized propaganda machine, paralyzing some
of its more newsworthy blogs.

These blogs promoted a devolutionary view of genetics and humanity, subliminally depressing anyone who
came into contact with their neurotic, personally obsessive and solutionless view of history.
Consequently, they like silent cancers worked to destroy all that gives the finer people among us hope,
justifying this constant stream of illusionist propaganda with the notion that not offending society's
lowest members is more important than allowing its highest to reach new altitudes.

ANUS infoterrorist PenisBird struck early in the morning hours, applying his comprehensive knowledge of
scripting to flood crowdist spin-control blogs with meaningless information, as if mocking the brainwash
of meaningless garbage they attempt to stuff into the heads of an unsuspecting populace. After several
rounds of reductive hammering, PenisBird and other infoterrorists were able to not only disable these
blogs, but control many of them.

"On the heels of my semi-victory against racistlosers.blogspot.com, I took on other Blogspot blogs,"
PenisBird wrote on the ANUS messageboard. "It's really easy to find a target. I just open any Slashdot
story with a bunch of comments and search for 'blogspot,'" he said. The ANUS team took only a few hours
to make short work of the weblogs, or "blogs," that in theory provide uncensored and unspun information
as an alternative to mainstream media.

For some years, the American Nihilist Underground Society (ANUS) and its members have recognized that,
whether coming from corporation or government or individual, any rhetoric emerging from modern society
supports the crowdist view. Crowdism favors the undifferentiated individuals of the crowd over any
direction that could possibly offend any of said members, and thus restrains not only proactive handling
of society's problems, but anything which would affirm one member of society as more valuable than any
other, except in the realm of monetary reward, which is equal.

Crowdism as a philosophy has gripped the West for the past millennium, but has begun to show signs of
massive internal failure as a population bred for captivity has experienced as corresponding reduction in
mental capacity and willpower, causing internal decay on all levels of the social system. In contrast to
the form of absolutes that crowdists, who fear death and inequality, require, the nihilists of tomorrow
believe in an idealistic realism which affirms the necessity of applying ascendant ideas within a cosmic
natural order.

The American Nihilist Underground Society, or ANUS, has for over a decade used the Internet to oppose the
ignorance of crowdism through crypto-nihilist messages and activism designed for the few remaining
thinkers in the West to enjoy. Recently, as more people have become dissatisfied with the collapsing
crowdist imposition of absolutist society, organizations such as ANUS have experienced a surge in
membership, much to the dismay of official and unofficial watchers imbued with the illusionary crowdist
philosophy.

About ANUS

The American Nihilist Underground Society advocates nihilism, or a removal of interpretive layers from
our perception of physical reality, as a means of transcending neurotic crowdism and thus achieving
adaptive success. It has been online since 1995 and attracts thousands of readers daily with articles
about philosophy, politics, music and culture. Every major internet filtering service bans anus.com, and
many "anti-hate" organizations decry it as an anti-crowdist site which must be censored and its
perpetrators bankrupted.

http://www.anus.com/

About Nihilism

Nihilism is the belief that nothing we perceive has Absolute value; reality exists, but beyond its
inherent meaning to us as the physical container of our existence, it has no significance outside of what
we perceive. "The world is my representation," indeed. When we strip away all of the values projected
onto physical reality and its outcomes, we are left only with personal ideal and natural ideal, and
bringing the former into adaptation with the latter is the lifetime task to which nihilism is a gateway.

http://www.nihil.org/
75007.3906558083

BlogTerrorist said...

Adam Yahiye (Y.A.) Gadahn: An Appeal

This is an open letter to the American people regarding Adam Yahiye Gadahn, and his recent addition to
the terrorist threat list by the FBI. Unlike most of the documents on this site, it is a plea for
"walking around in the other guy's shoes."

I never met Y.A. Gadahn face-to-face, but I knew him through his contributions to my radio show. When I
last spoke to him, back in the 1990s, he created several fliers for the show, and helped out with
numerous music programming suggestions. I remember him as a passionate, courteous, intelligent kid
excited about life, but somewhat cowed by its unnecessary human-induced dark side, thus prone to
listening to lots of quality death metal.

Call it compassion, or call it empathy, but a lot of kids like Y.A. Gadahn resonated with me in spirit.
They came from dark homes where overworked parents (if they were lucky - often a single parent) drove
long hours to labor in the bowels of the city-machine, and came home with no energy for their kids.
Brainless, authoritarian public schools. Neurotic adults who couldn't explain why all of this was
important. An increasingly-restrictive republic whose electorate seemed uninformed as to the actual
issues. A natural world being consumed and turned into strip malls at an alarming rate.

I think this future is what alarms a lot of us, patriotic Americans and al-Qaeda radicals alike. The idea
that maybe we're speeding toward something we can't control, that we can't undo. The thought that as our
obsession with money and power reaches new heights, we'll forget nature, and will also forget there's
another way outside our dark thorny path of righteousness.

I don't believe al-Qaeda is evil, and I don't believe George Bush is illegal. I definitely don't believe
A.Y. Gadahn is "evil," or even ill-intentioned. I think he's a sincere guy like any number of others you
may have grown up next door to, worked a cube over from, spent time guffawing with at a baseball game. I
knew him as a normal kid, with normal desires and normal fears, including a growing dread of what "modern
life" has become.

Because of this, today, I ask for your compassion, and for your consideration of a singular thought: it
could be there are no "good guys" and "bad guys" here, but that we, as a society have lost our way and
need to re-invent our values. Where we once had a goal in overcoming nature, we now have no goals except
those in society itself... money, power, look-at-me social importance.

More than any tangible political goals, I think it's the goal of al-Qaeda and other dissident groups
(including ANUS, the GNAA, and Abrupt) to resist that coming darkness. It might not yet have stamped its
consequences onto our foreheads, but it's like that day in school when your teacher is delayed in
conference and you and your friends spend the first twenty minutes of class raising hell: this can't end
well. Ultimately, there will be a piper to pay.

Your oceans are choked with plastic. Your air, awash in chemicals. Your cities wastelands of crime and
look-a-like plastic storefronts. Your children, alienated and lonely in dysfunctional families, broken
social relationships, and prisonlike schools.

Before you ride another normal guy into the ground so he can be worked over by military intelligence, I
ask you this: consider an option.

Do it for A.Y. Gadahn, or do it for whatever ideals you hold dearest, or do it for yourself, but do it.
Resist. With reason, passion and the knowledge that it doesn't have to be this way.

Sincerely,
Spinoza Ray Prozak
898.580418523785

BlogTerrorist said...

Adam Yahiye (Y.A.) Gadahn: An Appeal

This is an open letter to the American people regarding Adam Yahiye Gadahn, and his recent addition to
the terrorist threat list by the FBI. Unlike most of the documents on this site, it is a plea for
"walking around in the other guy's shoes."

I never met Y.A. Gadahn face-to-face, but I knew him through his contributions to my radio show. When I
last spoke to him, back in the 1990s, he created several fliers for the show, and helped out with
numerous music programming suggestions. I remember him as a passionate, courteous, intelligent kid
excited about life, but somewhat cowed by its unnecessary human-induced dark side, thus prone to
listening to lots of quality death metal.

Call it compassion, or call it empathy, but a lot of kids like Y.A. Gadahn resonated with me in spirit.
They came from dark homes where overworked parents (if they were lucky - often a single parent) drove
long hours to labor in the bowels of the city-machine, and came home with no energy for their kids.
Brainless, authoritarian public schools. Neurotic adults who couldn't explain why all of this was
important. An increasingly-restrictive republic whose electorate seemed uninformed as to the actual
issues. A natural world being consumed and turned into strip malls at an alarming rate.

I think this future is what alarms a lot of us, patriotic Americans and al-Qaeda radicals alike. The idea
that maybe we're speeding toward something we can't control, that we can't undo. The thought that as our
obsession with money and power reaches new heights, we'll forget nature, and will also forget there's
another way outside our dark thorny path of righteousness.

I don't believe al-Qaeda is evil, and I don't believe George Bush is illegal. I definitely don't believe
A.Y. Gadahn is "evil," or even ill-intentioned. I think he's a sincere guy like any number of others you
may have grown up next door to, worked a cube over from, spent time guffawing with at a baseball game. I
knew him as a normal kid, with normal desires and normal fears, including a growing dread of what "modern
life" has become.

Because of this, today, I ask for your compassion, and for your consideration of a singular thought: it
could be there are no "good guys" and "bad guys" here, but that we, as a society have lost our way and
need to re-invent our values. Where we once had a goal in overcoming nature, we now have no goals except
those in society itself... money, power, look-at-me social importance.

More than any tangible political goals, I think it's the goal of al-Qaeda and other dissident groups
(including ANUS, the GNAA, and Abrupt) to resist that coming darkness. It might not yet have stamped its
consequences onto our foreheads, but it's like that day in school when your teacher is delayed in
conference and you and your friends spend the first twenty minutes of class raising hell: this can't end
well. Ultimately, there will be a piper to pay.

Your oceans are choked with plastic. Your air, awash in chemicals. Your cities wastelands of crime and
look-a-like plastic storefronts. Your children, alienated and lonely in dysfunctional families, broken
social relationships, and prisonlike schools.

Before you ride another normal guy into the ground so he can be worked over by military intelligence, I
ask you this: consider an option.

Do it for A.Y. Gadahn, or do it for whatever ideals you hold dearest, or do it for yourself, but do it.
Resist. With reason, passion and the knowledge that it doesn't have to be this way.

Sincerely,
Spinoza Ray Prozak
1822.27536978817

BlogTerrorist said...

Your uncle is a bar of soap, your cousin is a lampshade
Your best friend is a candle, and you're a fucking jew
Your neighbors are a landfill, too bad you got away
But all the jews that didn't have rotted in the lime pits
50 years later, you've still got an agenda
For world domination, but you'd better think again
To when we had the upper hand, der furher had control
You kikes were in the cattle cars, then shoved into an oven...
Think of all the friends and family you lost...


Happy Hanukaust!


You claim six million, i wish it were true
But you're a pack of lying fucking jews
A holocaust memorial is built on the land
Where most of your relatives are buried in the sand
In bulldozed graves to cover the pollution...
Too bad you weren't part of the final solution
Wearing long sleeves to cover your tattoo
Will never hide the fact that you're a dirty jew
Think of all the friends and family you lost...


Happy Hanukaust!


Light the menorah and think of the time
When you sold out your neighbors for a handful of dimes
All those filthy jews... they must have been pissed,
They couldn't buy their way onto Schindler's list
Think of all the friends and family you lost...


Happy Hanukaust!
28306.6759783691

BlogTerrorist said...

As a boy growing up in Northern Ontario we received enemas as a cure for everything. We had an enema
three times as often as we had an aspirin.

In my later years I began to get erections when the warm soap and water flowed in. I started to think
about giving enemas to others.

As high school football player I had to go to the doctor for a mino operation. It was there that a young
nurse gave me a somewhat unexpected enema. The operation I was scheduled for involved my foot but the
doctor insisted I get a good cleaning out so that I could rest afterward.

The young nurse showed me into a treatment room. Once I was inside the room she told me I was to receive
an enema. I was still fully dressed so I was a little uncomfortable undressing. I had some problems
because my foot was injured. She offered to help. I sat on the table while she grasped my trousers and
began to try to wiggle them off. This was difficult especially since I had an erection by then.

She ignored by bouncing, protruding penis as she removed my pants. I was flushed with embarrassment. I
was happy when she asked me to lie on my side so that she could administer the enema. I could hide my
excitement while she filled a large glass jug with warm, soapy water. She attached the jug to a mount on
the wall.

This enema was different than when mother had administered them. After I was full she told me to hold it
for a few minutes. She proceded to rub my stomach. I was extremely excited by then and our eyes met in
earnest. She told me that she would love an enema as well. I told her that I had learned how to give them
at home.

The nurse then had me evacuate in an ajacent bathroom while I could hear her locking the door. When I
came out, she had started to disrobe. Before I could administer the enema however she wanted to make
love. After we were done making love she received her enema.

I am now married to that nurse and we have an enema bag on the bathroom door for everyone to see. Not all
of our lovemaking sessions include enemas but most of the do and they are among my favorites.
26141.0834487751

BlogTerrorist said...

As a boy growing up in Northern Ontario we received enemas as a cure for everything. We had an enema
three times as often as we had an aspirin.

In my later years I began to get erections when the warm soap and water flowed in. I started to think
about giving enemas to others.

As high school football player I had to go to the doctor for a mino operation. It was there that a young
nurse gave me a somewhat unexpected enema. The operation I was scheduled for involved my foot but the
doctor insisted I get a good cleaning out so that I could rest afterward.

The young nurse showed me into a treatment room. Once I was inside the room she told me I was to receive
an enema. I was still fully dressed so I was a little uncomfortable undressing. I had some problems
because my foot was injured. She offered to help. I sat on the table while she grasped my trousers and
began to try to wiggle them off. This was difficult especially since I had an erection by then.

She ignored by bouncing, protruding penis as she removed my pants. I was flushed with embarrassment. I
was happy when she asked me to lie on my side so that she could administer the enema. I could hide my
excitement while she filled a large glass jug with warm, soapy water. She attached the jug to a mount on
the wall.

This enema was different than when mother had administered them. After I was full she told me to hold it
for a few minutes. She proceded to rub my stomach. I was extremely excited by then and our eyes met in
earnest. She told me that she would love an enema as well. I told her that I had learned how to give them
at home.

The nurse then had me evacuate in an ajacent bathroom while I could hear her locking the door. When I
came out, she had started to disrobe. Before I could administer the enema however she wanted to make
love. After we were done making love she received her enema.

I am now married to that nurse and we have an enema bag on the bathroom door for everyone to see. Not all
of our lovemaking sessions include enemas but most of the do and they are among my favorites.
85599.6681935164

BlogTerrorist said...

The Paradox of Individuality:


The roots of modernity stem from the importance placed in the individual above all else. Modern society places emphasis on society as a collection of individuals, rather than on society as a unit of smaller pieces reaching for a goal much as an organism is created out of organs working towards a single goal- sustaining the existence of the whole. Because of this focus on the pieces, fragmented and separated from the whole, consensus can never be achieved, except to the lowest possible values- comfort mainly, as seemingly all other popular values, whether in a physical sense as drives most consumerism, or in a mental sense, as in entertainment and illusions of personal importance, which act to cause the one enjoying them to cease thinking about issues of mortality or accomplishment (or, more specifically, lack thereof).



In order for this happy impotence to continue existing, it requires that every individual be given not only the mental comfort outlined above, but none to excel in any meaningful way, for that would be implying that not everybody is equal, and would shatter the blissful numbness. Echoes of "Brave New World" and "Paradise Lost" should be ringing loudly in the reader's head right now; in guaranteeing comfort and a comfortable self-esteem for all, it stifles all potential towards anything other than mediocrity.



The reason that this goes unnoticed by most people is because of the adornments to one's affectation that this system allows. Every person can choose to put on a different superficial role, their own dysfunction, while acting like everyone else. They can choose to buy the Britney Spears CDs because of their complete faith in blind hedonism to lead them through any situation, or they can buy their favorite album from Linkin Park to demonstrate their unfocused anger. At their root, though, they're engaging in the same action- purchasing a plastic product to demonstrate their "uniqueness" for playing this role, which will be forgotten and thrown away within a few months (popular music aims at expressing nothing other than base, meaningless sentiments, and thus is wholly disposable and similar).



Most people, being unable to create great works or take action towards a cause in any form, love this form of individuality because it allows them to think that they're an individual without having to exert any sort of effort to distance themselves from the norm; it allows them to be equally important to the person who writes great symphonies, or is the greatest warrior, despite their complete lack of distinction. Thus, they create mobs which operate wholly to provide a place for the individual's sense of ego, and harshly attack all that pose some threat to their sense of self importance; which happens to be basically anyone who has some distinction in their merit, rather than the role that they play and call a "personality". Thus, the paradox of individuality is revealed; through holding up the concept of the individual above all else, it forces everyone to be the same, undistinguished person.
89645.775029096

BlogTerrorist said...

The Paradox of Individuality:


The roots of modernity stem from the importance placed in the individual above all else. Modern society places emphasis on society as a collection of individuals, rather than on society as a unit of smaller pieces reaching for a goal much as an organism is created out of organs working towards a single goal- sustaining the existence of the whole. Because of this focus on the pieces, fragmented and separated from the whole, consensus can never be achieved, except to the lowest possible values- comfort mainly, as seemingly all other popular values, whether in a physical sense as drives most consumerism, or in a mental sense, as in entertainment and illusions of personal importance, which act to cause the one enjoying them to cease thinking about issues of mortality or accomplishment (or, more specifically, lack thereof).



In order for this happy impotence to continue existing, it requires that every individual be given not only the mental comfort outlined above, but none to excel in any meaningful way, for that would be implying that not everybody is equal, and would shatter the blissful numbness. Echoes of "Brave New World" and "Paradise Lost" should be ringing loudly in the reader's head right now; in guaranteeing comfort and a comfortable self-esteem for all, it stifles all potential towards anything other than mediocrity.



The reason that this goes unnoticed by most people is because of the adornments to one's affectation that this system allows. Every person can choose to put on a different superficial role, their own dysfunction, while acting like everyone else. They can choose to buy the Britney Spears CDs because of their complete faith in blind hedonism to lead them through any situation, or they can buy their favorite album from Linkin Park to demonstrate their unfocused anger. At their root, though, they're engaging in the same action- purchasing a plastic product to demonstrate their "uniqueness" for playing this role, which will be forgotten and thrown away within a few months (popular music aims at expressing nothing other than base, meaningless sentiments, and thus is wholly disposable and similar).



Most people, being unable to create great works or take action towards a cause in any form, love this form of individuality because it allows them to think that they're an individual without having to exert any sort of effort to distance themselves from the norm; it allows them to be equally important to the person who writes great symphonies, or is the greatest warrior, despite their complete lack of distinction. Thus, they create mobs which operate wholly to provide a place for the individual's sense of ego, and harshly attack all that pose some threat to their sense of self importance; which happens to be basically anyone who has some distinction in their merit, rather than the role that they play and call a "personality". Thus, the paradox of individuality is revealed; through holding up the concept of the individual above all else, it forces everyone to be the same, undistinguished person.
72646.8007194712

BlogTerrorist said...

Modernity
There can be nothing more frustrating than trying to explain something to someone who cannot perceive it. It is not that they will not; if they had that kind of decision on their hands, they could understand. Not did not; they simply lack the ability to, now or forevermore, process the kind of detail required. This type of thinking is not detail-obsessed, but it require that one build a mental picture of the future based on many tiny details, because, and I hope this isn't a news flash, life rarely spells out its plans in big bold letters on the wall in front of you. All myths to the contrary, life is plenty happy to let you wander right up to disaster and linger by it for awhile until, figuring the coast is clear, you take one too many steps and BOOM, it comes crashing down on your ass.

When I tell people that modern society has a great and pervasive disease, the common response is either (a) I don't see it or (b) well, I'm doing okay, so why would I worry? The former is at least honest; the paradoxical bitterness of relativity is that it doesn't excuse one for not seeing the truth, but admits that most people literally have limitations as to how much complexity they can handle, and thus what they can perceive. An idiot sees a house on fire; a genius sees a fire extinguisher in one corner. The second group of people need more analysis, as they claim to have knowledge of impending doom, yet paradoxically, claim it does not affect them. A genius sees a house on fire and gets the fire extinguisher; an idiot simply closes the door to his room - out of sight, out of mind.

So here we are in the world where no one can perceive how deeply screwed things may be. There are thousands of details that must be correlated to see the whole picture. Most people can't drive a car through an intersection in a timely manner, or figure out routine transactions. They are distracted by their own drama, and thus they screw everything up and take forever, then get weepy if confronted. The streets are lined with giant, ugly buildings in which impersonal agencies dole out rigid policies and god help you if you're an exception. Government takes in money and sends out fines and prison sentences for gross violations. Those who are smart avoid the law while ripping people off, legally, and thus have the best of both worlds.

Few notice, but we're steadily consuming more nonrenewable resources. There will be no more gasoline; there's a finite amount. Most people cannot even comprehend that sentence to understand its implications. There is no more land that is going to be created; there is only so much land, and we use more of it each year. Everywhere one looks, the signs are there, if one knows what to look at. Jobs are hilarious shuffling of papers and conning of fellow humans into believing one illusion over the other and, thus approved, transferring one sum of money into another. People live for empty, pointless lives. The highpoint of their day is often television, or consumption of products. Interpersonal relations consist of attacking others and trying to drag them down to make yourself feel better. What kind of life is this?

One thing that astounds any sane observer is how people are isolated mentally in modern society. For example, today I saw some guy in a wheelchair selling candy at an intersection. He'd pull up right beside cars and sell you M

BlogTerrorist said...

School District to recognize "Ebonics" as a foreign language

7/21/05 - UPI

It used to be called Jive.

A series of slang words grouped together in primitive ways that is spoken by the lowest of evolved humanoids.

Then one alleged educator renamed jive 'ebonics' to somehow
grant respectability to this nigger noise.

Now A school district in Southern California has approved the affirmation and recognition of Ebonics into its curriculum in an
attempt to help the less evolved students improve academic performance.

The San Bernardino Board of Education says a pilot of the policy, known as the Students Accumulating New Knowledge Optimizing Future Accomplishment Initiative, has been implemented at
two city schools.

'Ebonics' or nig-bonics, was recognized as a separate language by the nigger fools at the Oakland, California school board in 1996.

Although the program is aimed at coon students, other students can choose to participate.

Ratibu Jacocks, a member of a coalition of black 'activists' - the Westside Action Group - said they are working with the district to ensure the policy is implemented appropriately.

He welcomes the idea of other ethnic groups lobbying for their own program. "When you are doing what's right, others will follow,' Jacocks said. "We have led the way before the civil-rights movement opened the door for women's rights and other movements."

(How about A White Civil Rights Movement? Why not A special program for German children to embrace their culture?
Is it racist for whites to have special programs but not for Blacks?)

The Minuteman(militiaman) project

7/20/05 - AP

(Communists and other leftist scum claim that the Minutemen
are racist even though they will let anyone participate regardless
of race. Extremist's use this ploy regularly to demonize whatever
they don't like. These guys are about as racist as Bush is smart;
and we should know!)

The minuteman Project is an volunteer movement that vows to guard the United States from the wave of brownskin Spic Scum. Some of the minutemen are nonwhite like Carl Whitaker who runs the Tennessee Volunteer Minutemen. Carl is an subhuman injun who
works to expose those who employ illegal aliens.

At least 40 groups opposing illegal immigration have popped up nationally, inspired by the Minuteman Project that rallied hundreds
this year to patrol the Mexican border in Arizona.

President Boy George has called the movement vigilantism.

The Minuteman Project itself has generated chapters in 18 states, from California to Utah, Minnesota and Maine. The Tennessee group and others like it have no direct affiliation but share a common goal.

At the Department of Homeland Security, whose authority includes patrolling borders and enforcing immigration laws, response to Minuteman-type activism is reserved.

"Homeland security is a shared responsibility, and the department believes the American public plays a critical role in helping to defend the homeland," agency spokesman Jarrod Agen said from Washington. "But as far doing an investigation or anything beyond giving us a heads-up, that should be handled by trained law enforcement."

Non whites and commies attack the Minutemen

7/20/05 - Newswire

Jim Gilchrist the founder of The Minuteman Project experienced the worst of America. He witnessed the literal siege of VFW Post #2080 by about 60 belligerent, death-threatening mud animals twice July 16th. The Caucasian-hating members of the subhuman organization known as the Mexican brown berets, stormed the VFW Lodge, damaging signs and other property. They were eventually repelled
by the late-arriving San Diego County Sheriff's Dept.

No arrests were made.

The rampage was orchestrated by Armando Navarro, a known Spic commie, who holds a comfortable, taxpayer funded, tenured position as a professor at the University of California - Riverside, Ca., and who has devoted his life to promoting the Spic conquest of the seven southwestern US states. He calls for the conquest to be carried
out by gunpoint, if necessary.

One California Minuteman volunteer, Jim Woods, was physically assaulted by a gang of ten of Navarro's thugs as he sat in his car alone at a border outpost. He was physically restrained in his car seat by the brown berets, who threatened to kill him. They stole his keys from the ignition and left him stranded without food or water for several hours. When Jim Woods identified two of the gang members to the Sheriff's Dept. and asked for an arrest, no action was taken by the Sheriff's deputies. One deputy just responded to Mr. Wood's plea for help with "Oh, you just lost your keys," despite repeated pleas to the contrary from Mr. Woods.

Forced crackdown on Illegals incite governors to issue threat

7/19/05 - Associate Press

Fees for a new driver's license have been threatened to triple.
Lines at motor vehicles offices could stretch out the door.

(The sky is falling!)

Governors threatened that states and consumers would get screwed because of the push to turn Drivers licenses into a national ID card.

The new federal law called the REAL ID Act was passed in
June as part of an $82 billion military spending bill.

By 2008, states must begin to verify whether license applicants are American citizens or legal residents of the United States.

Ideally this will prevent states from handing out drivers licenses to any illegal alien that applies. Many states like Oregon hand out drivers licenses without verifying citizenship. Once you have a license
(which is really your government ID card) you then have de facto citizenship.

That deadline brought the first question in a closed-door session between governors and federal officials on homeland security
Monday at the National Governors Association meeting.

The two groups also talked about pressures on National Guard troops, and steps to better integrate state and local law enforcement with federal efforts to prevent terrorist attacks, governors said as they wrapped up their summer meeting.

After meeting privately with governors, Homeland Security Jewboy
Michael Chertoff said the new law could create opportunities to protect people against identity theft. He also offered assurances that his agency would work cooperatively with states. "What we want is to find a common plan that works for everybody, but we'll also take into account the natural differences states have," Chertoff said.

Democrat Bill Richardson of New Mexico said "denying illegal immigrants a driver's license just makes it harder for government
and law enforcement to keep track of them. New Mexico allows illegal aliens to get Drivers licenses. "

(Why don't we just seal the damned borders with electrified fences and minefields? If Ariel Sharon can fence in the Palestinians in
in palestine, why can't be be allowed we fence in our country? Next the government should find the Spics here and bring them home:
either on a bus in they go along willingly or in a box if they resist.
We wouldn't have to keep track of the Beanors or worry about them being uninsured motorists if they were back in the turd-world where their slime belongs!)

Iraqi war continues out of control

7/17/05 - Aljazerra

Deadly violence across Iraq continues, leaving more than 100
people dead and nearly 300 wounded in bombings since 7/14.

Attacks in Baghdad on Sunday morning claimed the lives of 10 people, including five members of the Iraqi security forces, after
police convoys were bombed, an Interior Ministry official said.

The attacks follow Saturday's devastating bombing at the southern town of al-Musayyib, when a man detonated himself near a tanker of liquefied gas, killing at least 70 people and wounding 95, according to hospital sources.

The explosion also set the central square, cars and shops ablaze.

The first attack on Sunday killed two policemen and one civilian
in the eastern New Baghdad neighborhood, police 1st Lieutenant Muhammad Jasim said. Seven policemen and one civilian were also wounded, some seriously.

About an hour later a second car bomb exploded near a police convoy near the Bayaa bus station in southern Baghdad, killing three police commandos and four civilians, police Captain Talib Thamir said. Three civilians were also injured in that blast.

"I was 100 meters away when I saw the fireball. It was enormous... People were burning in their cars. We had to get them out with hooks," said Khodr Abbas.

"I saw women in the burning houses crying for help and we couldn't do a thing," he said.

One of those injured, Ammar al-Karaguili, 40, said he saw disparate parents throwing their children out of windows and from balconies to escape the inferno.

In other violence, a US soldier was killed and two more wounded by an improvised explosive device in the northern Kirkuk province of Iraq, the US military said.

This brought to 1757 the number of US military personnel killed in
Iraq since the March 2003 invasion: according to a tally based on
the slanted Pentagon figures.

KKK Leader: 1979 Shootings Were Self Defense

7/17/05 - Fox Jews

A former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan took the stand at a public hearing Saturday and said those who fired on people at a "Death to the Klan" march more than 25 years ago did so in self-defense.

Five people were killed at the Nov. 3, 1979 rally.

"To tell the truth, if you look at the evidence and see what happened,
it was all self-defense," said Gorrell Pierce. "Everybody was participating in a riot."

Pierce, a former Grand Dragon of the Federated Knights of the KKK, spoke at public hearing held by the Greensboro "Truth and Reconciliation Commission".

The "commission" is investigating the deaths at the march organized by the Communist Workers Party that ended when members of the Klan and the American Nazi Party opened fire.

Leaders in Greensboro, a city of 223,000 in central North Carolina, fear the hearings will rekindle old animosities, but organizers hope to uncover what they feel is the untold story behind the shootings and promote healing.

Pierce said fighting between marchers and Klan members ended in shooting because Communists tried to pull a 79-year-old Klansman out of his car and younger Klansmen came to his aid.

He said he had ordered members of his Klan faction not to attend the march. "I regretted it the day it happened," said Pierce.

Several Klansmen were acquitted of murder charges at a state trial. In 1984, federal prosecutors failed to win a conviction against Virgil Griffin, a Klan member from suburban Charlotte who was acquitted of conspiracy to interfere with a federal investigation. Griffin was scheduled to testify later Saturday.

The shootings followed a clash earlier that year between Communists and Klansmen when the Klan showed the film "Birth of a Nation" in nearby China Grove, Pierce said. At the movie, anti-Klan demonstrators confronted them so closely "you could feel each
other's breath," he said.

11 Soldiers Charged in US torture Incidents

7/16/05 - Associated Press

BlogTerrorist said...

31452.6403134226

BlogTerrorist said...

Elections and Futures
Plenty of ink has been wasted on the 2004 election in America, and what it portends for our future. Much more won't be wasted here, but it is an opportune topic on which to show how people identify themselves with partisan viewpoints and thus conveniently blind themselves to the actual larger question of leadership. If you think picking Kerry over Bush, or Bush over Kerry, is somehow going to stop the course of decay, or constitutes a decision of any importance, you are assuming that there is a solution within the system itself and are denying its basic unworkability.

Those who own the media and politicians will be glad for such a view, at it supports the current dysfunction and the broken values system behind it which praises "freedom" while allowing an oligarchy motivated by money - not Judaism, not multiculturalism, not a vast right-wing conspiracy - to manipulate you and destroy your future. In this view, you had the sensitivity people, represented by John Kerry, and the aggressive people, represented by George Bush; if you picked one candidate and believed honestly that that would change the nature of the system, or "prevent" a great ill, you are pretending that (a) that there's not much wrong or (b) that there's so much wrong we can do nothing about it.

Such pretense is a justification for inaction that transcends political boundaries. Such an inaction takes this system at face value, and by believing that solutions lie within the options offered, endorses our system as not only workable, but worth supporting! In a larger view, a vote for Bush or for Kerry was a vote for a continuation of a failed system which has been getting increasingly authoritarian through both Republican and Democratic administrations; the system would continue on its course because its power lies in internal division, which conveniently allows vast profits to be made while future problems accumulate - whether you picked Option A or Option B on the ballot.

It is fortunate the George W. Bush won the election.

This is not because he was the best candidate, but because it brought the situation to a peak and demonstrated the failings of this system in its entirety. Bush represents everything that's despicable about America: its religious and "freedom" rhetoric while supporting corrupt allies for the sake of international commerce, which transfers money from our population to investors who have no allegiance to anything productive - they care only about their profit, and how to take it from you. They consider themselves "smart" for doing this, since it is "getting ahead," and being "successful," and damn all who can't see this - they must be stupid.

Neither candidate would have changed anything; it's clear that if Americans weren't rock-ignorant they would have put in votes for Nader, guaranteeing the presence of third parties in a political system that increasingly represents two different views of the same option. However, they listened to their televisions, and out of fear that Bush would win, threw all their support behind Kerry, every bit as much the child of privilege and conniving robber baron that Bush and his family are. Consequently, Bush wins this election, and a democrat the next, and the system continues basically unchanged. Although it is current popular to whine about Bush, keep in mind that he was elected by the majority of the people, and represented little different viewpoint than that of John Kerry.

Imagine that John Kerry won. What would he do that differs from Bush's policy? Not much - Clinton demonstrated the willingness of the left to sign away constitutional "rights" and "freedoms" in favor of national security, and any president that doesn't address the threat of "terrorism" with more draconian measures guarantees his own failure. He can't back out of Iraq without leaving Iraq to collapse; he doesn't want to keep fighting the war; and if he picks a "middle option" of less military involvement, he guarantees a military defeat as well as the collapse of Iraq. He might try to prop up the ailing Social Security program, but, as the wisest economists point out, it's a system dependent on future wage earners making less and paying less to support more people. It is doomed.

So what did John Kerry offer? He's a devout Methodist, remember - but he might patch up some things with Europe. That's great, if we want to drag Europe down into the same morass that afflicts America - why would we want that? He might be more popular worldwide because he's less visibly ignorant, less of an insane warmonger and less of a religious fanatic, but that's conjecture based on the idea that he was opposed to the Iraq war and would sign the Kyoto treaty. As shown above, his options in Iraq are extremely limited; Kyoto is a symbolic gesture, and going beyond it would require that Kerry turn on the corporate interests that helped support him. Not very likely, for a politician.

No, my friends - you aren't children anymore - there are no such easy answers. The disease runs far deeper. Not only does every democracy collapse this way, but your system is motivated by a psychology of masses versus elites that guarantees we all lose, every time. People rail against Bush because it's a popular opinion. Every celebrity repeats it, and your favorite political commentators and entertainers parrot it. It's popular because, like most popular opinions, it claims something vast and important for very little action; it's a "bargain." Bush is the problem, bleat bleat; it's not the downfall of your country because the foundations of its power are corrupt by nature. If we just get rid of the bad apples and "terrorists" - bleat - maybe we can return to enjoying our freedom, our DVDs, our heroin and our hobbies. Wouldn't that be a nice easy vision?

It is however an essentially similar idea to the concept that you can buy a different selection of products than your friends and thus construct a unique identity, or the idea that if you buy a health club membership, you'll automatically start excercising. My friends, there are no such easy answers, and in a society motivated by money, all of your obvious choices will support that system of money. Neither Bush nor Kerry came from anything but a life of luxury and doors opened by whispered names, but - bleat bleat - they're clearly better leaders than Nader. They offer us what American society has always promised, which is "freedom" (yet no one can define it) and the ability to earn as much money as we can stand putting in the boring hours to achieve. American society promises there are no elites, and that we're all "equal," and in that is the disease.

While George W. Bush is a horrible leader, a sociopathic fundamentalist zealot, and makes no illusions about his being in the pocket of large corporations, the problems run deeper. Clinton after all had the same issues, as well as some problems keeping his pants zipped. But you have to ask yourself: what kind of a society keeps pretending this is an operational system? Money drives the world, and so culture and nature and art are ploughed under while products that satisfy the basest of mass appetites make wealth for unscrupulous investors. Since we always need new customers, the society itself keeps expanding. It doesn't end, at least not from its own will; it ends when it collapses into a third-world economy, and those always seem to be run by oligarchies of international investors who buy off local warlords.

Money drives the world - because we cannot agree on a direction, we pick money as something "equal" and "fair" to us all, since the best obviously are the most driven to make tons of money and thus, are suitable as our leaders. It isn't that these people were born of kingly blood, but that they've worked hard and gotten ahead by manipulating the system - by being popular and appealing to the broadest segment of opinion, no matter how ignorant it may be - in healthier times, we called such people prostitutes. It isn't the president that creates the system; he is a creation of the system. If you believe as your controllers wish, you'll think that democracy has been "subverted" but if you read a little history, you will see that all democracies end this way, because the public image requirements of democracy create behind-the-scenes commercial oligarchies.

While we have the ability to fix our society, but perhaps not the democratic system, it is not going to happen by picking Option B over Option A as your vote. Nor can it be helped by making charitable donations to the "right" organizations, nor by becoming an "activist" and staging public protests that no one gives a second thought. It requires something new for the American public, and that's actual political involvement, instead of "supporting" one of the two talking heads and hoping that "the good people" will fix the situation for you. I mean, did you really believe that - are you still children, after all? The oligarchs laugh at you, little sheep, for falling right into their trap, all while congratulating yourselves for voting for the "right" man!

Realizing this cuts to the root of the problem: for centuries our society has been at war with itself, masses versus elites, and it has ended up deciding in favor of the more populous group - the broadest segment of society, who generally have no specific talents or inclinations, but are able to buy products like anyone else and thus, if "empowered," become ideal consumers, because they have no tendency toward higher rationale of purchases. There isn't anything "wrong" with such people, but clearly they're not the right leadership for any society which wishes to rise above its origins. The public ideal that ignorance is better than appearing to be "above" any other citizen allows the oligarchs to manipulate citizens with public image. In life, everything keeps going on a path toward the simplest compromise unless something brighter and more visionary intervenes.

Bush illustrates that the American way of life and political system is incompatible with any values system, as the simplest ideas always triumph, and when your choice of leader is to pick one of two camps of opposing millionaires, there's clearly a fault in the system and not in which candidate you pick. This is a more complex view, and one that doesn't take our system at face value. I am sure you are all smugly disagreeing, congratulating yourselves on knowing the "truth," but perhaps if you think on this you'll see how you've been played for a fool.

Those who are the most smug are the drones, who are happiest with any philosophy that justifies inaction and following the present course of action; these are the underconfident people who want some reason to feel good about themselves, and the idea that we require change and constant development toward new heights of strength and wisdom suggests to the underconfident that something is "wrong" with what they are; these people see only the present moment, and not the bigger picture. Drones love the current society because it gives them a reason to feel good about themselves; after all, we accept everyone as they are, and look at the good things we are doing for others. We feel better when we can reach a hand out to others and help them, as it makes us feel powerful. Who needs that but the underconfident?

And what is the ultimate evil, to a sheep or a drone, except to be beyond the rigid and absolute rules required by underconfident individuals to protect them from criticism and possible defeat? For this reason the rule of the sheep has prevailed in Europe and America, and it has bred people who conform to its rules and expectations, leading to an ongoing decline which no picking of Option A or Option B can stop. Realize that George W. Bush is what he is - the right man, for the right time. But recognize that time for what it is: the final stages of a social decay. This rot comes from our illusory thinking, and makes broken people, and only when we reverse it do we become internally strong enough to have a society worth living in again. What reverses it is a heroic mindset, in contrast to our current passive one.

A heroic mindset places the individual second to what must be achieved so that all may experience its greatness; its opposite is the passive viewpoint, which in adults (although most adults today adopt it) is emasculating. Passive mindsets include the idea of an absolute religious truth, like morality, or an absolute secular truth, such as liberalism; other variations on this are utilitarianism, or the belief that what most people find appealing is the right path for us all, and of course, materialism, or the belief that nothing matters but individual comfort and convenience. A decaying society will be passive, and will not offer you an Option on the ballot to undo its error through a normal election; you will have to "think outside of the box."

The passive mindset is your true enemy, although it may not directly affect you, right now. All declining civilizations have such a passive mindset, because such an outlook is needed to stop increasing the power of a society and to fall back into dividing up the spoils, following social trends and caring about popularity - rising civilizations set aside these temporary delights, and instead look toward achievement as a sense of pride. This is what made all ancient civilizations great, and will be responsible for the rise of any future civilization that is great. Our current society has nothing to say for itself except that it is passive, and pledges not to hurt you, unless you offend its sensibilities, in which case you are "evil."

Television drones pick one option over the other and congratulate themselves on thinking "progressively" or for upholding "what made this country great," but no such simple options await you - Are you still children? Bush is reprehensible, but he is a symptom of the illusory thinking of our decaying civilization. Instead of believing in politics itself, think outside of politics and arm yourself with ideas of a better civilization - in this is the only salvation from the type of dysfunctional options offered by election 2004.


43453.2059174412

BlogTerrorist said...

Postmorality

If there is one thing humanity needs to hear right now, it is this: "Grow up!" However, this is not the
form of maturity of which is commonly spoken, by which they mean a certain docility and resignation that
allows one to call a job and servitude to social prestige a meaningful life. The usage here refers to the
ultimate maturity, which is an ability to accept reality in all of its positive and negative dimensions,
and resolve to act upon it as is necessary.

We could call this ultimate maturity "realism," because when all the semantic arguments are brushed
aside, and all the ontological concerns shown to be aspects of the same question, we realize that most of
human discourse centers on objects of perception without stopping, first, to form a comprehensive system.
Since there is no explanation for our world as a whole, what replaces logic is an ability to analyze
details intently, without ever discovering the interconnection between data.

This basic failing is akin to us as humans selecting to believe only that which originates in a human
mind, and to relegate reality - the interaction of beings, natural forces, and objects in our physical
real-time world - to second-class status. Whether we pick materialism or dualism, both extremes serve us
badly by taking our attention away from an observation of life and pointing it toward arbitrary
linguistic problems that do not necessarily related to reality.

As such, realism is the king of all scientific outlooks, and herein is its paradox: although we all live
in the same world, not all have the fineness of perceptual analysis to understand realism. Most people
not only "would prefer to" cling to stolid absolutes that require no interpretation or context to be
applied, but also cannot conceive of any other form of belief system. It is only in our recent (400
years) mania for new customers to not offend that we have made the presumption that all people, if "given
the same advantages," can understand the same complex thoughts.

Thus we have a troubling situation, onto which another is rapidly piled: a nearly indefinable belief
based upon a reality in which we all live, but which we perceive to different degrees. Luckily, nature
makes this easy for us, and the best-bred among us are the ones who - owing to greater intelligence,
health and moral character - are able to perceive not only what is, in an immediate sense, but its
function, even over time. These are realists who often move to the next level, which is idealism.

Idealism in the vernacular means something different from philosophical idealism; in philosophical
idealism, one suggests that the world is (a) composed of thought or (b) operates in a similar method to
thought; the two are roughly conflatable, in that if the world operates as thoughts, on the high level of
abstraction at which philosophy works, it might as well be thought. Still, even the most spacy of the
idealists affirm realism as the basis for their idealism. How does this work?

What we call science is the process of deducing structural functions to our world, and then using those
to in turn predict responses to certain events or actions. When we understand how our world works
(realism), we can then turn toward the question of its manipulation (idealism), which is subdivided into
questions of how, which relate directly to our degree of realistic perception, and why, which are more
akin to the goal-setting tendencies of idealism. Realism is perception; idealism is a study of design
both in perception and moral action.

Of course, balancing these two ideas is quite a challenge for almost anyone, and only the smarter ones
among us can do it - but among Indo-Europeans, this is not as small of a population as one might think.
Although the dumbest among us make themselves known as the loudest, there is usually a silent group who
function at a high level of efficiency and care deeply about doing the right thing; these however lack
the impetus to draw attention to themselves, as they already understand a spiritual principle by which
self is secondary to whole. These people understand the secret of nihilism.

Unlike most philosophical systems, which are based on achieving an ideal or asserting a value as higher
than others, nihilism is a discipline. It's a way of training your mind to look at the world, and from
it, as in any fully-developed philosophical system, comes an explanation of the entirety of philosophy as
opened for us by the initial realizations of nihilism. Once again, it's not for everyone; if you don't
get it, you might not be ready, and many among us will never be ready, as they literally lack the
circuitry to understand it. Much as you cannot educate a kitchen blender into a supercomputer, you cannot
make a philosophical genius out of the average mind.

Nihilism seems a paradox. It denies all value, thus obliterating the objective/subjective and mind/body
divisions favored by dualists, yet it upholds the idea of abstract structure ("design") behind our
cosmos, as when one denies value one turns to function, specifically function of the physical world. It
is not, however, materialism, as materialism champions a faith that material comfort and individual
survival are the highest goals that exist; most likely, those who are materialists lack the circuitry to
go further. Nihilism is a form of idealism, in that it posits an order to the universe that can be
understood through logic, but rejects value-judgments as a method of doing this; don't categorize and
classify, suggests nihilism, but describe. Describe structure, not physicality or emotionality.

In this we achieve the beginnings of a fully mature philosophy, something akin to the "pragmatic
idealism" Nietzsche described or the pessimistic Hindu-inspired idealism of Schopenhauer; it is
reminiscent of the beliefs of early Greco-Roman civilizations, where the gods personified natural forces
and were beyond any form of "moral judgment," or classification into good and evil. When the ashes settle
over the last thousand years of Western civilization, it will quickly become clear that moral
classification led us to a kind of linear thought that detached us from a study of systemics, and thus
allowed us to do ludicrously destructive things in the name of details - the individual, an absolute
moral principle, or the need to make some cold hard cash.

One of the best aspects of nihilism and cosmic idealism alike is their rejection of absolute moral
judgments, meaning any type of rule that applies without context and to all people alike. The simplest
example is the hypocrisy over murder in the West; we say murder is wrong, and then murder people for
committing murder. A nihilist avoids the initial error by never saying "murder is wrong," but instead,
electing to murder those who threaten whatever values are held dear. A rapid stratification appears among
human beings at this point, because depending on where we are on the intelligence-moral character scale,
we value different things. Those who are at the higher end of such a scale have valuable opinions, and
the rest... should probably be oppressed.

All philosophical concepts are interrelated, and every philosophical system uses a core concept as an
introduction to all other parts of philosophy; if your system is idealism, for example, you translate all
other philosophical questions into idealist vocabulary, and then analyze them and synthesize responses
from that point. A nihilist system is no different. Nihilism is both radically different from
Christianity, but agrees with it on many points, much as it does with Hinduism and other cosmic idealist
systems. If it has an enemy, it would be the lower-level systems, like materialism and superstition,
which rules out Judaism and Voodoo.

However, any good nihilist does apprehend quickly why in ancient societies the principle of karma/caste
was rapidly attached to a postmoral system: if there is no prohibition against killing, one had better
limit that function to those who know enough to handle it. In the same way we do not give firearms to
three-year-olds, certain privileges must be earned by those who show aptitude and character for them. As
most of the questions of philosophy are complicated enough to take a lifetime, ancient societies tended
to breed people for these roles, thus producing the original definition of aristocracy: the
philosopher-kings and warrior-kings who knew how to wield the power they had.

A modern comparison to this is any form of martial art. The students are taught slowly to take on the
powers of a fully capable fighter, so that alongside raw technique they may absorb years of wisdom - and
be sent away by their teachers if they are psychopaths or otherwise defective. Just as one does not teach
post-911 Arab students to take off in planes but not land them, one does not teach nutcases to kill with
a punch. The caste system is part of this karmic order in that it is recognized that, with each advance
in breeding, the design of the next generation changes; those designs are most likely to function as
their ancestors did. As a result, one creates groups like aristocracies which are bred for the finest
traits and pass them along to their offspring.

This system works surprisingly well. Outside of a few defectives, most people have the abilities of their
parents, if developed by education. Even more importantly, they have the moral inclination and traits of
their parents, and therefore make similar types of decisions. The power of nihilism and postmorality in
ancient societies was kept among those who had for generations proven themselves able to wield it; this
is a more effective system than our modern one, which supposes that "anyone" could be effective with this
kind of power, so we give it to them and hope they don't screw up. Remember that during election year.

What we refer to as postmoralism was designed for elites by breeding, as it is a complex system.
Essentially, traditional "Western" (Judeo-Christian) morality is designed around simple rulesets: evil is
bad, murder is evil, therefore if you murder, you are evil and we should murder you. Postmoral tradition,
as mentioned above, does not waste time banning murder. It asks, simply, was the murder fortunate? which
means: did the murder increase the elegance and graceful function of a natural order? If one has murdered
a child molestor, order is increased and made better; if you murder a child who otherwise would likely
done great things, you are probably a psychopath and should be murdered.

In warfare, for example, murder was viewed as glorious in the idealistic tradition, as those who lost
lives had done so in fulfilment of their place in a natural order, and in doing so, had risen a level in
the karmic cycle by not shirking from what must be done. Even more, victims were sacrifices to the gods
of the nature, and had fulfilled their own role; material fortunes came second to spiritual ones (a
complete reversal of the modern logic). One did not weep for a conquered enemy, but sang for the whole of
nature, as in the growth of better people a more logical order was instituted.

Other examples come to mind. Idealists tended to treat their women better than any other group; they gave
them privileges, had laws against their mistreatment, and tended to murder and mutilate those who
committed rape, incest, and assault in peacetime. In war, it was different; rape of a conquered enemy was
viewed as a chance to increase the breeding potential of that tribe, and was thus a joyful occurrence. If
a warrior with IQ of 140 raped a woman with IQ of 85, the logic went, she received an upgrade (payable in
next generation) of some IQ points, thus all was cool. It's important to note, of course, that idealists
did not engage in world wars for economic and political commodities, thus it's impossible to compare
their actions to those of a modern time.

Another example is money. For those who deserved money as a means of achieving their function, it was
viewed as a natural right and something not to be questioned; for those who did not have such a use, it
was seen as suspect to care too much about it. If you have enough to live and retire, what is the need
for desiring more? - they viewed it in the same way our current society views people who spend their
entire income on pornography and lubricant: obsessive. Money was something granted by the gods for a
purpose, not a purpose in itself, as it is in modernity.

Unfortunately, this system was replaced with a one-size-fits-all system, in which postmoral rules cannot
apply, because they must apply to everyone, equally, in order to be "fair." As one might guess, such a
system was not created by the few highly intelligent ones, but by the masses of unstable and
unspecialized people who inherently fear those who might be more capable than they. The masses won by
numbers, and overwhelmed their leaders and aristocracy, and that brought us the downfall of Greece, of
Rome, and the future downfall of America. It also brought us absolute moral judgment and "good"/"evil."

Now that America has run its course, and it has become clear to even liberals that the system is
collapsing under its own weight and paradox, the idea of a postmoral society is again considered. And, as
all concepts are linked, people are again considering the concept of an aristocracy of our most capable
to wield the kind of unfettered power that such a civilization allows. Creating rigid moral rules, and
then having checks and balances on leaders, hasn't worked; not only has corruption flourished, but we've
been unable to make necessary long-term decisions.

While our system is reassuring to those who fear they are inadequate, it has traded sanity for the
accomodation of those who are defective or underperforming, and not surprisingly, the results have been
terrible. This is why humanity needs to "Grow up!" and realize that we're not all equal, and we need some
qualified leaders fast, before we make ourselves miserable and then in short order, exterminate ourselves
and all that we care about. To take that step, we need to go down the winding path from realism to
idealism through nihilism, and in doing so, to cultivate in ourselves a new maturity.
9138.19736745751

BlogTerrorist said...

Postmorality

If there is one thing humanity needs to hear right now, it is this: "Grow up!" However, this is not the
form of maturity of which is commonly spoken, by which they mean a certain docility and resignation that
allows one to call a job and servitude to social prestige a meaningful life. The usage here refers to the
ultimate maturity, which is an ability to accept reality in all of its positive and negative dimensions,
and resolve to act upon it as is necessary.

We could call this ultimate maturity "realism," because when all the semantic arguments are brushed
aside, and all the ontological concerns shown to be aspects of the same question, we realize that most of
human discourse centers on objects of perception without stopping, first, to form a comprehensive system.
Since there is no explanation for our world as a whole, what replaces logic is an ability to analyze
details intently, without ever discovering the interconnection between data.

This basic failing is akin to us as humans selecting to believe only that which originates in a human
mind, and to relegate reality - the interaction of beings, natural forces, and objects in our physical
real-time world - to second-class status. Whether we pick materialism or dualism, both extremes serve us
badly by taking our attention away from an observation of life and pointing it toward arbitrary
linguistic problems that do not necessarily related to reality.

As such, realism is the king of all scientific outlooks, and herein is its paradox: although we all live
in the same world, not all have the fineness of perceptual analysis to understand realism. Most people
not only "would prefer to" cling to stolid absolutes that require no interpretation or context to be
applied, but also cannot conceive of any other form of belief system. It is only in our recent (400
years) mania for new customers to not offend that we have made the presumption that all people, if "given
the same advantages," can understand the same complex thoughts.

Thus we have a troubling situation, onto which another is rapidly piled: a nearly indefinable belief
based upon a reality in which we all live, but which we perceive to different degrees. Luckily, nature
makes this easy for us, and the best-bred among us are the ones who - owing to greater intelligence,
health and moral character - are able to perceive not only what is, in an immediate sense, but its
function, even over time. These are realists who often move to the next level, which is idealism.

Idealism in the vernacular means something different from philosophical idealism; in philosophical
idealism, one suggests that the world is (a) composed of thought or (b) operates in a similar method to
thought; the two are roughly conflatable, in that if the world operates as thoughts, on the high level of
abstraction at which philosophy works, it might as well be thought. Still, even the most spacy of the
idealists affirm realism as the basis for their idealism. How does this work?

What we call science is the process of deducing structural functions to our world, and then using those
to in turn predict responses to certain events or actions. When we understand how our world works
(realism), we can then turn toward the question of its manipulation (idealism), which is subdivided into
questions of how, which relate directly to our degree of realistic perception, and why, which are more
akin to the goal-setting tendencies of idealism. Realism is perception; idealism is a study of design
both in perception and moral action.

Of course, balancing these two ideas is quite a challenge for almost anyone, and only the smarter ones
among us can do it - but among Indo-Europeans, this is not as small of a population as one might think.
Although the dumbest among us make themselves known as the loudest, there is usually a silent group who
function at a high level of efficiency and care deeply about doing the right thing; these however lack
the impetus to draw attention to themselves, as they already understand a spiritual principle by which
self is secondary to whole. These people understand the secret of nihilism.

Unlike most philosophical systems, which are based on achieving an ideal or asserting a value as higher
than others, nihilism is a discipline. It's a way of training your mind to look at the world, and from
it, as in any fully-developed philosophical system, comes an explanation of the entirety of philosophy as
opened for us by the initial realizations of nihilism. Once again, it's not for everyone; if you don't
get it, you might not be ready, and many among us will never be ready, as they literally lack the
circuitry to understand it. Much as you cannot educate a kitchen blender into a supercomputer, you cannot
make a philosophical genius out of the average mind.

Nihilism seems a paradox. It denies all value, thus obliterating the objective/subjective and mind/body
divisions favored by dualists, yet it upholds the idea of abstract structure ("design") behind our
cosmos, as when one denies value one turns to function, specifically function of the physical world. It
is not, however, materialism, as materialism champions a faith that material comfort and individual
survival are the highest goals that exist; most likely, those who are materialists lack the circuitry to
go further. Nihilism is a form of idealism, in that it posits an order to the universe that can be
understood through logic, but rejects value-judgments as a method of doing this; don't categorize and
classify, suggests nihilism, but describe. Describe structure, not physicality or emotionality.

In this we achieve the beginnings of a fully mature philosophy, something akin to the "pragmatic
idealism" Nietzsche described or the pessimistic Hindu-inspired idealism of Schopenhauer; it is
reminiscent of the beliefs of early Greco-Roman civilizations, where the gods personified natural forces
and were beyond any form of "moral judgment," or classification into good and evil. When the ashes settle
over the last thousand years of Western civilization, it will quickly become clear that moral
classification led us to a kind of linear thought that detached us from a study of systemics, and thus
allowed us to do ludicrously destructive things in the name of details - the individual, an absolute
moral principle, or the need to make some cold hard cash.

One of the best aspects of nihilism and cosmic idealism alike is their rejection of absolute moral
judgments, meaning any type of rule that applies without context and to all people alike. The simplest
example is the hypocrisy over murder in the West; we say murder is wrong, and then murder people for
committing murder. A nihilist avoids the initial error by never saying "murder is wrong," but instead,
electing to murder those who threaten whatever values are held dear. A rapid stratification appears among
human beings at this point, because depending on where we are on the intelligence-moral character scale,
we value different things. Those who are at the higher end of such a scale have valuable opinions, and
the rest... should probably be oppressed.

All philosophical concepts are interrelated, and every philosophical system uses a core concept as an
introduction to all other parts of philosophy; if your system is idealism, for example, you translate all
other philosophical questions into idealist vocabulary, and then analyze them and synthesize responses
from that point. A nihilist system is no different. Nihilism is both radically different from
Christianity, but agrees with it on many points, much as it does with Hinduism and other cosmic idealist
systems. If it has an enemy, it would be the lower-level systems, like materialism and superstition,
which rules out Judaism and Voodoo.

However, any good nihilist does apprehend quickly why in ancient societies the principle of karma/caste
was rapidly attached to a postmoral system: if there is no prohibition against killing, one had better
limit that function to those who know enough to handle it. In the same way we do not give firearms to
three-year-olds, certain privileges must be earned by those who show aptitude and character for them. As
most of the questions of philosophy are complicated enough to take a lifetime, ancient societies tended
to breed people for these roles, thus producing the original definition of aristocracy: the
philosopher-kings and warrior-kings who knew how to wield the power they had.

A modern comparison to this is any form of martial art. The students are taught slowly to take on the
powers of a fully capable fighter, so that alongside raw technique they may absorb years of wisdom - and
be sent away by their teachers if they are psychopaths or otherwise defective. Just as one does not teach
post-911 Arab students to take off in planes but not land them, one does not teach nutcases to kill with
a punch. The caste system is part of this karmic order in that it is recognized that, with each advance
in breeding, the design of the next generation changes; those designs are most likely to function as
their ancestors did. As a result, one creates groups like aristocracies which are bred for the finest
traits and pass them along to their offspring.

This system works surprisingly well. Outside of a few defectives, most people have the abilities of their
parents, if developed by education. Even more importantly, they have the moral inclination and traits of
their parents, and therefore make similar types of decisions. The power of nihilism and postmorality in
ancient societies was kept among those who had for generations proven themselves able to wield it; this
is a more effective system than our modern one, which supposes that "anyone" could be effective with this
kind of power, so we give it to them and hope they don't screw up. Remember that during election year.

What we refer to as postmoralism was designed for elites by breeding, as it is a complex system.
Essentially, traditional "Western" (Judeo-Christian) morality is designed around simple rulesets: evil is
bad, murder is evil, therefore if you murder, you are evil and we should murder you. Postmoral tradition,
as mentioned above, does not waste time banning murder. It asks, simply, was the murder fortunate? which
means: did the murder increase the elegance and graceful function of a natural order? If one has murdered
a child molestor, order is increased and made better; if you murder a child who otherwise would likely
done great things, you are probably a psychopath and should be murdered.

In warfare, for example, murder was viewed as glorious in the idealistic tradition, as those who lost
lives had done so in fulfilment of their place in a natural order, and in doing so, had risen a level in
the karmic cycle by not shirking from what must be done. Even more, victims were sacrifices to the gods
of the nature, and had fulfilled their own role; material fortunes came second to spiritual ones (a
complete reversal of the modern logic). One did not weep for a conquered enemy, but sang for the whole of
nature, as in the growth of better people a more logical order was instituted.

Other examples come to mind. Idealists tended to treat their women better than any other group; they gave
them privileges, had laws against their mistreatment, and tended to murder and mutilate those who
committed rape, incest, and assault in peacetime. In war, it was different; rape of a conquered enemy was
viewed as a chance to increase the breeding potential of that tribe, and was thus a joyful occurrence. If
a warrior with IQ of 140 raped a woman with IQ of 85, the logic went, she received an upgrade (payable in
next generation) of some IQ points, thus all was cool. It's important to note, of course, that idealists
did not engage in world wars for economic and political commodities, thus it's impossible to compare
their actions to those of a modern time.

Another example is money. For those who deserved money as a means of achieving their function, it was
viewed as a natural right and something not to be questioned; for those who did not have such a use, it
was seen as suspect to care too much about it. If you have enough to live and retire, what is the need
for desiring more? - they viewed it in the same way our current society views people who spend their
entire income on pornography and lubricant: obsessive. Money was something granted by the gods for a
purpose, not a purpose in itself, as it is in modernity.

Unfortunately, this system was replaced with a one-size-fits-all system, in which postmoral rules cannot
apply, because they must apply to everyone, equally, in order to be "fair." As one might guess, such a
system was not created by the few highly intelligent ones, but by the masses of unstable and
unspecialized people who inherently fear those who might be more capable than they. The masses won by
numbers, and overwhelmed their leaders and aristocracy, and that brought us the downfall of Greece, of
Rome, and the future downfall of America. It also brought us absolute moral judgment and "good"/"evil."

Now that America has run its course, and it has become clear to even liberals that the system is
collapsing under its own weight and paradox, the idea of a postmoral society is again considered. And, as
all concepts are linked, people are again considering the concept of an aristocracy of our most capable
to wield the kind of unfettered power that such a civilization allows. Creating rigid moral rules, and
then having checks and balances on leaders, hasn't worked; not only has corruption flourished, but we've
been unable to make necessary long-term decisions.

While our system is reassuring to those who fear they are inadequate, it has traded sanity for the
accomodation of those who are defective or underperforming, and not surprisingly, the results have been
terrible. This is why humanity needs to "Grow up!" and realize that we're not all equal, and we need some
qualified leaders fast, before we make ourselves miserable and then in short order, exterminate ourselves
and all that we care about. To take that step, we need to go down the winding path from realism to
idealism through nihilism, and in doing so, to cultivate in ourselves a new maturity.
31700.9373195153

BlogTerrorist said...

School District to recognize "Ebonics" as a foreign language

7/21/05 - UPI

It used to be called Jive.

A series of slang words grouped together in primitive ways that is spoken by the lowest of evolved humanoids.

Then one alleged educator renamed jive 'ebonics' to somehow
grant respectability to this nigger noise.

Now A school district in Southern California has approved the affirmation and recognition of Ebonics into its curriculum in an
attempt to help the less evolved students improve academic performance.

The San Bernardino Board of Educat