Tag: philosophy

Yes, They ARE Trying to Kill You

Karl Denninger doesn’t believe that the satanic global depopulationists actually want to kill anyone.

No, They’re Not Trying To Kill You

The common chestnut among those with a bit too much Reynolds wrapped around their head:

This is part of a depopulation move to kill you all.

IMHO, nope.

Why? Because while those who think they’re your “betters” are indeed desirous of you all getting “out of their way”, such as not being on Martha’s Vineyard if you’re brown and from Venezuela, unless of course you’re already a servant (Want to see this in prime action? Visit Jackson Hole, MV, or any of these other places); if you are suddenly there and “in their face” they want those folks as actual people who expect to be treated on an equal footing about as much as a plantation owner wanted the black folks in his house sleeping in his bed (other than when providing sexual pleasure “on demand”, of course.)

But even so all these people do fully understand that without plenty of roughnecks and “lessers” in the form of something as simple as a car mechanic they’re fucked. Their jet is useless without fuel in size and to get it to their airport it first must be drilled for, extracted, refined and then transported and none of these people will dirty their hands to do any of that. Never mind that effectively zero of them could replace a wheel bearing on their nice expensive car if it required it; without said replacement when it needs to be done the vehicle is a 2-ton brick.

Karl is a genuine American hero. His courageous work on the vaccine front saved many lives and families. He always tells the truth as best he sees it, and I regard his blog as one of the very few must-reads on the Internet.

He is a smart, observant, and rational man. But he is not, to the best of my knowledge, a religious man.

Which, I think, makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for him to connect the events that he analyzes so well today with the pattern of historic manifestations of the same evil that is ascendant today. Because the wicked elite are not rational, their motivations are difficult to comprehend, and their inspirations are inhuman.

But the one thing we do know about them is that they celebrate death and seek to create more of it everywhere they go and in everything they do.

So, yes, with all due respect, they are trying to kill you.

DISCUSS ON SG

BIC Digs Deeper

Bounding Into Comics contemplates whether my explanation of the reason the mainstream media is attacking Tolkien in the aftermath of the catastrophic debacle of the Amazon subversion is well-founded in light of the original Tolkien texts.

Arkhaven Comics publisher Vox Day recently explained why he believes numerous media outlets, so-called Tolkien academics, Tolkien influencers, and others are attacking J.R.R. Tolkien. There are numerous pieces of evidence of media outlets, so-called Tolkien academics, and others attacking J.R.R. Tolkien. Most recently, Deakin University Lecturer Helen Young accused Tolkien of racism, anti-Semitism, and orientalism in The Conversation.

“Fascinating, is it not, that a high fantasy writer could foresee today’s transhuman global technocrats in the 1940s? It’s because their goals are no different than they were back before the dawn of recorded human history: to be like God.”

Indeed Tolkien saw that evil because he also wrote in The Silmarillion, “Sauron with many arguments gainsaid all that the Valar had taught; and he bade men think that in the world, in the east and even in the west, there lay yet many seas and many lands for their winning, wherein was wealth uncounted. And still, if they should at the last come to the end of those lands and seas, beyond all lay the Ancient Darkness. ‘And out of it the world was made. For Darkness alone is worshipful, and the Lord thereof may yet make other worlds to be gifts to those that serve him, so that the increase of their power shall find no end.’”

He continued, “And Ar-Pharazôn said: ‘Who is the Lord of the Darkness?’ Then behind locked doors Sauron spoke to the King, and he lied, saying: ‘It is he whose name is not now spoken; for the Valar have deceived you concerning him, putting forward the name of Eru, a phantom devised in the folly of their hearts, seeking to enchain Men in servitude to themselves. For they are the oracle of this Eru, which speaks only what they will. But he that is their master shall yet prevail, and he will deliver you from this phantom; and his name is Melkor, Lord of All, Giver of Freedom, and he shall make you stronger than they.’”

The reason Tolkien is being subverted and attacked today is because he clearly saw the nature of evil and its objectives, which have not changed since men began building the Tower of Babel. The entire course of human history is one of repetitive waves of would-be immortals desparing at the Law of Nature, rebelling against their Creator, and sacrificing massive quantities of innocent mortals to evil supernatural beings in inevitably futile attempts to transform themselves into gods and thereby escape death.

Everything evil that is not driven by hedonism, greed, and attention-seeking is driven by fear of death. And the more one satiated one is of the first three, the more completely one succumbs to the fourth. Tolkien knew this, he wrote about this, and that is why the evil would-be immortals of today want him to be forgotten.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Big Ticket

I’m not saying Jeff Bezos took the ticket… but it sure looks like he took the ticket and that it’s very nearly time to pay the piper. The more one learns about the ugly truth concerning fortune and fame in Clown World, the more one begins to truly appreciate the value of hard work, genuine fans, and the modest benefits of success that can be legitimately earned.

DISCUSS ON SG

Herd People

It doesn’t matter how smart you are if you are psychologically unable to analyze anything outside of what previously recognized authorities have told you to believe:

I recently talked to a friend of mine at a recent social event. We’ll call him Bob. He’s super smart about most things. But when it comes to the vaccine, he’s blind to the truth.

He was bragging about how he has been vaxxed 6 times with the COVID vax and he’s perfectly healthy. He can’t wait for SB 866 in California to pass so when his kids turn 12, they can decide to get the vaccine over their mother’s objections.

Bob thinks I’m a nut case, cherry picking data. He says I used to be respected, but after turning anti-vax, people have lost all respect for me. He said I have a religious belief about the vaccine and I’m not driven by data.

What he isn’t telling anyone is that he’s been losing his vision ever since he got his first COVID vaccine. He used to have 20/20 vision, but now he wears glasses and can’t drive at night. When I brought up the data showing the connection between the shots and vision loss, he changed the topic.

I showed him two papers showing the more you vaccinate, the sicker you get (see the two papers here). I asked, “Where are the papers that show the opposite?” He ignored my request.

He gets his belief system from the mainstream media. Full stop. He reasons that if I was correct, surely Bill Gates would agree with me and admit they goofed. It’s 100% deference to authority.

Bob will not look at the data himself and he doesn’t want to discuss it. He will not engage. He thinks that if I was right, there would be more than a handful of people speaking out. So he tallies the size of the support base on each side of an issue instead of looking at the data.

I pay literally zero attention to what Herd People say. They are easily identified, because their first concern is always optics. Furthermore, their defense of authorities is always motivational. If you point out that the evidence suggests that the government, or Bill Gates, or some other authority is lying, rather than consider the evidence, both damning and exculpatory, they will always ask why the observably dishonest party would choose to lie.

And, rather bizarrely, “because they are going to be rewarded with large sums of money” is never considered an acceptable explanation, even if the Herd Person is an economist and rational materialist who believes that all human action is derived from monetary interests.

Anyhow, if the Herd People are emotionally attached to an idea, that’s a pretty reliable indicator that the idea is false. And regardless, it would no more occur to me to take their programmed opinions into account than to consider what actual cows happen to think. There is literally nothing going on inside their heads that can be reasonably described as a “thought process”. It’s more of a “feelings process”.

UPDATE: Consider the Ukrainian response to Russian claims that a Ukrainian agent was responsible for the Darya Dugina assassination in light of this observation of Herd People behavior and the way in which they are programmed.

On the latest Russian reports, the bomb was attached to Dugin’s car inside his guarded compound. Ukraine focuses on military targets, unlike Russia, and there is no discernible gain in attacking one of Putin’s media puppets or allocating scarce operatives inside the Russian Federation to such a goal that is meaningless to the liberation of Ukraine.

The defense is motivational rather than factual. Ergo, we can reasonably conclude that those offering it are knowingly lying.

DISCUSS ON SG

Knowing When to Walk Away

The Forge and Anvil is closing down:

I strongly feel I have to turn away from the religio-political non-fiction writing I’ve been doing for more than a decade. I greatly admire people like Razorfist or Jon Del Arroz, who’ve managed to both work in the creative sphere, but simultaneously provide commentary on the issues. Yet again, I simply do not have the time to do all that. Writing is not my job. And I have a family I’m taking care of.

I very much desire to focus all of my creative talent on the Bovodar stories. (Notice how you still haven’t seen the sequel to Bovodar and the Bears? It’s because I’ve been doing Forge and Anvil. Episode 1 of a two-part sequel is complete, though unedited. It’s called “Bovodar and the Dragons.”) I listen to podcasts about properties like Lord of the Rings or Babylon 5, I watch Deep Space 9 reviews by Razorfist, or I’ll watch something about the Farscape saga, and I say to myself: “I should be doing that. Why am I so behind?”

At this point in my life, I was supposed to have a symphony of books out there. A trilogy of Hobbit-styled books, some adult novels expanding upon my created universe, a “Silmarillion” that described the ancient genesis of the world I’ve been building. Perhaps have a videogame by now. Comics. A cartoon or two? Etc. But I don’t. I’m like George R.R. Martin, who stubbornly refuses to finish A Song of Ice and Fire. I’ve got an entire “Dune trilogy” in my mind that no one but me knows about. And it’s not put out there because I’ve only one life, and I’m only one man. Bilocation is not something I can do.

So I will turn back to what started this whole journey. The fiction. The very fiction I set out to do from the outset. The non-fiction was an interruption and a tangent, but the fiction will have to resume.

I think he’s doing the right thing, and probably at the right time too. Always know when to walk away. I stopped writing syndicated game reviews after seven years, stopped writing political columns after 12 years, and walked away from recording and publishing contracts after two albums. In each case, it was the right decision to do so and I’ve never regretted it.

Even though I walked away from Alpha Game at precisely the moment that the SSH was beginning to break out into the mainstream, it was the right time to shut it down there. I’d explored the subject to the depths of my interest and it was best to leave it to others to delve into the various ancillary elements and applications that interested them.

Don’t ever phone it in. Once you get to the point that you’re just phoning it in, it’s imperative to find something else on which you can focus more enthusiastically.

DISCUSS ON SG

Atheist Morality

Sam Harris demonstrates why, no matter how they ponder their personal ethics and pontificate about their superior values, atheists are not fit to be members of any civilized society.

Hunter Biden literally could have had had the corpses of children in his basement, I would not have cared, right? So there’s nothing — first of all, it’s Hunter Biden, it’s not Joe Biden, but even if Joe — like, even — whatever scope of Joe Biden’s corruption is, like, if we could just go down that rabbit hole endlessly and understand that he’s getting kickbacks from Hunter Biden’s deals in Ukraine or wherever else, right, or China, it is infinitesimal compared to the corruption we know Trump is involved in. It’s like a firefly to the sun, right? I mean, there’s just — it doesn’t even stack up against Trump University, right? Trump University as a story is worse than anything that could be in in Hunter Biden’s laptop in my view, right? Now that doesn’t answer the people who say it’s still completely unfair to not have looked at the laptop in a timely way and to have shut down ‘The New York Post’s Twitter account, like that — that’s a left-wing conspiracy to deny the presidency to Donald Trump. Absolutely it was. Absolutely, right. But I think it was warranted, right?”

Atheists have no moral anchor. There’s literally nothing there. Their much-vaunted, self-constructed value systems revolve around nothing more than whatever happens to trigger their emotions at any given moment. They are simple creatures of pure appetite and rhetoric.

Remember, Sam Harris is supposed to be among the finest, smartest, most highly-refined philosophers that the atheist community has on offer. So if you ever wonder why Christian Nationalism is integral to the preservation of Western Civilization, Mr. Harris’s very vivid demonstration of atheist amorality should suffice to explain its necessity.

DISCUSS ON SG

Summa Speculatica

My aversion for theology, particularly of the modern sort, is well-known here. But that aversion has never extended to St. Thomas Aquinas, whom I admire enormously, and as I was reading selections from his Summa Theologica, as I do on occasion, I thought it might be interesting to consider my own thoughts on his various positions. So, I returned to the beginning, which is the ten articles on the nature and extent of sacred doctrine.

I answered them – my answers are in italics – prior to re-reading his answers, so as not to compromise my own reactions.

To place our purpose within proper limits, we first endeavor to investigate the nature and extent of this sacred doctrine. Concerning this there are ten points of inquiry:

(1) Whether it is necessary? YES

(2) Whether it is a science? YES, although not as science is presently defined by post-modernity or in the scientodic sense.

(3) Whether it is one or many? ONE, in the sense of true Sacred Doctrine. Of course, there are many false sacred doctrines.

(4) Whether it is speculative or practical? PRACTICAL, albeit with speculative consequences.

(5) How it is compared with other sciences? UNFAVORABLY in the modern context. I assume Aquinas is viewing it from the “Queen of Sciences” perspective here, but I could be wrong.

(6) Whether it is the same as wisdom? NO

(7) Whether God is its subject-matter? YES

(8) Whether it is a matter of argument? YES

(9) Whether it rightly employs metaphors and similes? YES

(10) Whether the Sacred Scripture of this doctrine may be expounded in different senses? YES

I’ll compare my answers with the Great Ox’s and attempt to ascertain where I went awry in a future post.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Quantum Editing Hypothesis

A number of Christians are, quite understandably, deeply appalled at the idea that Satan can not only quote Scripture and inspire the publication of false and misleading Scriptures, but can even ex post facto alter the historical texts. However, 2 Thessalonians appears to suggest that in the rebellion that follows the exit of the Restrainer, the man of lawlessness will “exalt himself over everything that is called God”.

Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshipped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

Does this include “the Word of God” in the context of the physical texts of the Bible? It’s not conclusive, but it certainly would appear to be a potentially viable interpretation, particularly when all of the Christian organizations that supposedly represent “the Bride of Christ” have observably prostrated themselves before the spirit of evil.

And we know that God’s words can be perverted. Are you so absolutely certain that you know the limits to which it can be done?

Every man’s word shall be his burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the Lord of hosts our God. – Jeremiah 23:36

This is not an opinion. This is merely observation and hypothesis. Perhaps the Mandela Effect skeptics are completely correct and nothing has ever changed in any text or corporate logo despite our unreliable childhood memories of something having been different in the past. But the hypothesis is important, because it provides a predictive model concerning the possibility of future, more spiritually significant alterations.

Here is why I would caution those who insist upon the absolute impossibility of any such changes – and I freely admit that they are, to the best of my understanding, absolutely impossible. Anyone who is armed by the awareness of the possibility of quantum editing is unlikely to be deceived, whereas those who insist upon the eternal immutability of the text under any and all circumstances will find it very hard to avoid being deceived.

Note for the midwits: don’t even start with your ridiculous “X can’t be Y, because that would mean Z isn’t Z” illogic. In fact, please just excise the whole binary “if-then” routine from your repertoire. The subject is observably beyond you.

DISCUSS ON SG

You’re Not Neutral When You Choose a Side

Switzerland belatedly discovers that it can’t redefine the concept of neutrality.

Russia has turned down a Swiss offer to represent Ukrainian interests in Russia and Moscow’s interests in Ukraine because it no longer considers Switzerland a neutral country.

Switzerland has a long diplomatic tradition of acting as an intermediary between countries whose relations have broken down, but Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Ivan Nechayev said on Thursday this was not possible in the current situation.

“The Swiss were indeed interested in our opinion on the possible representation of Ukraine’s interests in Russia and Russia’s in Ukraine,” Nechayev said. “We very clearly answered that Switzerland had unfortunately lost its status of a neutral state and could not act either as an intermediary or a representative. Bern has joined illegal Western sanctions against Russia.”

Switzerland has mirrored nearly all the sanctions that the European Union imposed on Russia over its military intervention in Ukraine.

No independent sovereign nation is going to trust the Swiss any longer or permit them to act as a neutral intermediary now that their federal government has not only taken sides in the NATO-Russian war, but foolishly chosen the losing side. If the current Federal Council had been in charge when WWII started, it would have taken the side of the Axis and gotten the country occupied by 1944.

This really isn’t that surprising. If the federal government ever decides to redefine chocolate to mean “something that isn’t chocolate”, the demand for Swiss chocolate will collapse too.

If you are as others see you, then the recent statement by a Russian foreign ministry spokesperson that “Switzerland had unfortunately lost its status of a neutral state” could be a tipping point in any understanding of what neutrality and Swiss neutrality mean. It is one thing for the 200-year-old Swiss “perpetual neutrality” recognised at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to be questioned internally, but for a major power, a member of the United Nations Security Council, to make such a declaration adds a new dimension to the ongoing domestic and global discussions of what neutrality means.

Neutrality means not taking sides. If you take a side, if you engage in economic sanctions or military conflict, then you obviously are not neutral. It’s not just the Russians who recognize that Switzerland is no longer a neutral state, but China and the rest of the BRICSIA coalition too. And what is the significance of “international law” that 80 percent of the global population does not recognize or respect?

DISCUSS ON SG

Occam’s Mirror

Martin Giddes on how the events of recent years have separated those who seek the truth from those we previously believed to have been friends and family:

The people who we thought were friends turned out to be merely acquaintances with a shared context and past. They didn’t understand who we really are in terms of our values, and neither did we see them clearly for who they are. The scamdemic in particular has resolved such misconceptions, as you cannot hide whether you are a colluder or resister. Those with whom we share a blood relationship may have notionally been family, but many have belatedly realised there was no true love there, and that duty was one-way.

We are having to build new families of choice, as our families of origin have abandoned our delight in life for an adulation of death. Once someone starts to suffocate and imprison children, indoctrinate them into premature and perverse sexualisation, and inject them with poisons, there is no going back to how we used to relate. Occam’s Mirror has shown the stark divide between those willing to engage in human sacrifice, and those who will resist it with all their might — and make sacrifices to do so.

To discover that your parents or siblings will maim and sterilise their own children for group approval is disturbing, but at least we now know. No matter how difficult things have been, there is no way I would want to go back to the world we had 5, 15, or 25 years ago. I have looked in the mirror, and seen both the beauty and ugliness in far starker terms than ever before. I am no longer confused by claims that prettiness is putrid or vice versa. The transvestigated false idols in the mass media look hollow and pathetic. In contrast, fluffy clouds and fruity bushes have become magical wonders of everyday living.

I have found who my true friends are, and it is those who will not compromise when it comes to harming children. Each of us faces personal strife, life setbacks, and the occasional sagging morale. There has been a toll extracted by this psychological warfare, social division, and barbaric genocide. Yet none of these loyal friends ever discusses with me whether we should switch from the narrow to the broad path. The protection of the young from predation is literally the issue we are willing to die for.

For me, the separation appears to be primarily between those who live by truth and those who live by fear. While I neither hate nor despise those who live by fear, I simply don’t have much to say to them anymore. What can you say to those who spend their days jumping at every narratival shadow while blithely ignoring the very real, and very substantial, threats to their families, their nations, their nominal faith, and the human race itself?

It’s rather like the IQ Communication Gap, only worse. And it doesn’t help that one cannot possibly hide one’s opinion of those literally sacrificing their children to their fears.

DISCUSS ON SG