So, what of the future ?

Thursday, 30 July, Year 7 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

o. It is certaini beyond the shadow of any sort of reasonable doubt whatever that the current worldii is going away.

The legitimate question, then, and certainly the only question worthy of the name, is what comes next ?

It is not difficult to give some sort of an answer to this question. Let's try.

I. Whatever comes next, it will certainly not be Christianity. Christianity, irrespective of the flavour, is merely socialism in a clown suit. The exact colors that clown suit displays are not in any way germane to the discussion, nor is the position that "you can fix Christianity by getting it into the right clown suit" sensible.

On the other hand, arguments constructed around how "quaint", or "harmless" or "traditional" or whatever else the clown suit is squarely miss the point : there may not be any socialism in the future, because socialism is the ideology of the stupid, and there's no future for these.

NB - I am not saying they won't inherit the kingdom of their dumb father. I am outright saying they won't make it past the pig sty.

II. If what comes next will be Islam, it will be a very drastically reinterpreted sort of Islam, to the point of very tenuously having barely any sort of connection to what passes foriii such today. As perceptible today, Islam is the ideology of loser teenage boys, a sort of distillate of their hormonally scented exudate after a sleepless night spent wrestling with an erection they fear and misunderstand. Maybe it grows up - if it does it's probably going to be very much like the anti-Arab indigent Iranian reinterpretationiv thereof cca 1300 and very little like its most successfulv parts today.

III. In any case, what comes next will settle the following major questions (that the current arrangements fail to settle) :

  1. A majority of women are farm animals, in strictly no way different and to no degree above a cow. They will be treated as such. A minority of women are individuals, just like me and you. They will be treated as such.

This is a drastically difficult problem to approach, in part because childbearing tends to promote the latter into the ranks of the former, in part because womanhoodvi is contagiousvii which makes plain coabitation a difficult proposition.

None of this is by any means an unsurmountable problem - it's not like sane, thinking women can't understand they carry a cow with them through life, as part of them, burried inside their belly and back of the skull. Most figure this out on their own anyway, as some sort of intuition - it'd be (and anecdotally is) both cheap and effective to support this intuition with social reinforcement and simply butcher the remaining dumb.

  1. Convenience is not, in and of itself, a solution.

You can see this pointviii rehashed throughout the history of ideas, "simony is bad" does not intend to mean anything past "sure deciding an argument by the purely economic, and economically legitimate criteria of who pays you more is simple and effectual and therefore convenient - but it's no good, because it introduces a cycle in economy and that breaks it". All this is in no way different from my disdain for jwz's position, the guy who "only wanted for things to work on their own - is that too much to ask ???" Yes, it is too much to ask. Stop asking stupid shit.

You will note that pointedly absent from that list are any sort of concerns related to "fairness"ix. This is because there's absolutely no room into the future for any of that crud. The future will be unfair or it will not be at all. I do not mean this lightly - races have been extinguished before and the white race is not special. If it wishes to be equal and fair, it will be equal and fair under the grass.

That is all.

PS. I wish to share with you just how unspeakably proud I am to have been able, through luck and diligent effort in that order, to construct the pile of useful tools that is Trilema, this endless Bandar Toolkit which allows me to in the end construct this article, out of its parts. I would not trade such wonder for anything.

———
  1. By the time general Wesley Snipes of NATO comes out with it... that's really the millionth and one tiny stamp. []
  2. No, not the "Western" world. The whole world. There's nothing else and nothing outside of "the Western world". Russians are and always were Africans, except a tall white sort, yet still swarming around the outskirts pretending to be "Cesars" by donning crowns made out of frozen goat shit, as if cargo cult works now or something. The Chinese are the same thing except smaller, swarmier, yellower. Suitwearer, Contractbearer, Master of the World. []
  3. No, not what "is it" today. This is how reinterpretations work - whatever passed for "electric current" in 1920 is NOT "what electric current was" in 1920. And, much to half a billion people's eternal chagrin (that don't even live there) - what passed for "America" in 1960, or in 1910, idem isn't what America actually was. []
  4. There's a very bad recent film that may help you understand this divide if you're not one to read. Look for the parts where the Persian father explains to his daugther how words are to be pronounced irrespective of anything school might say, add together the part where the Arab schmuck is resentful over not being more socially central, add two and two together. Then go read. Nobody in the recent history of that JohnSmithism has taken the muslims seriously, for exactly the quoted reason. []
  5. ISIS, the Taliban etc are successful strictly because they are radical enough. They carry no point, no idea and no value above and beyond the correct intuition that the world has ended. []
  6. Womanhood as used here denotes biological conservatism - that is the proposition that it is always better to do anything else instead of killing. It is a position well founded in biology, and it is associated with women through no fault of theirs, but through a merit : they're in the best position to appreciate just how much damned effort and inconvenience it takes to make a new schmuck, and so if any alternatives are available they'd much prefer not having to go through that all over again.

    This is valid and respectable, but it also can not become the whole consideration, because sometimes the shit that comes out of their cunt is simply unbearable and will have to be taken out of existence. In short, biological conservatism is a virtue, but you can readily have too much of a good thing. If the kids face no chance to die on their own, they face no chance to grow up into humanity either. []

  7. The only reasonable diagnosis of the current set of youngsters is that they're all trying to be young women. Not adult women, but fanciullas, unpopped cherries, that horrible thing. In this perspective, "transsexualism" is just an epiphenomenon of the larger problem - who cares that some of the idiots try to alter their secondary sexual characteristics ? They've all lost contact with the primary anyway.

    Imagine that - contagious girlhood. Cooties! Who the fuck knew 9 yos had the correct intuition fifty fucking years ago. []

  8. You can see the previous point similarly rehashed, if you bother to look. Why do you suppose Sparta didn't support plain coabitation between the genders ? Why do you suppose Xtian Europe introduced that entire song and dance to protect one from the corrosive effects of cunt on the premises ? Etc, etc, etfuckingc. []
  9. Or, as the spin doctors hysterically put it recently, "preventing gentrification". It's not that the US is too poor to even upkeep infrastructure, let alone build new amenties of any kind. It's that they're "trying to prevent gentrification", don't you know.

    Yeah, that's right, gentrification - that thing where people get the american dream, that thing where "social mobility" ends up, that thing [the slower] people are still coming to the US for. They wanna prevent it. Because you gotta be poor, in socialism. []

Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

11 Responses

  1. The legitimate question, then, and certainly the only question worthy of the name, is what comes next ?

    Fascinating and entertaining reading, as usual.

    When you say Christianity does not come next, this isn't accurate. Followers of Christ have belief. Belief doesn't "come next", and in the matter of Christ, has persisted for two thousand years plus. If you mean fulfilment of the prophecies of the Bible, that is another matter, and any particular person's belief in them has nothing to do with whether they will come true or not, any more than a scientists belief in a physical phenomena or object makes them real or not. Whatever is true is already true and has been true. For example, Pluto existed before it was "discovered" by an astronomer; man's knowledge does not conjure reality into being.

    The important matter of time-scale is missing from this argument also. Will the world as it is now (and I presume you are really talking about the coercive state and its fraudulent fiat money) dissapear in under ten years, or in one hundred? In the long term all States dissapear, so long time-scale predictions are a stopped clock argument.

    The average lifespan of fiat is 16 years, so we can make a rough estimate on when the money will cease to function, but as for the rest of it, far horizon guesses aren't very useful because all States are impermanent. The real question is will this happen in a short enough times span for us to enjoy living in that new world where we get to gloat over the complete collapse of the State, or will it take so long that we only get to see it from our death beds as old men. I would prefer the former of course.

  2. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    2
    Mircea Popescu 
    Thursday, 30 July 2015

    I have no doubt you'll live to see it.

  3. Gabriel Laddel`s avatar
    3
    Gabriel Laddel 
    Thursday, 30 July 2015

    "I. Whatever comes next, it will certainly not be Christianity."

    Amen.

  4. You neglect to mention that most males will also be cattle, or do you suppose they will just be dead because they are even more useless than dumb females?

  5. Knowing MP, certainly the latter.

  6. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    6
    Mircea Popescu 
    Thursday, 30 July 2015

    Yeah, srsly, who cares about the bois.

  7. Lino Wojnaroski`s avatar
    7
    Lino Wojnaroski 
    Wednesday, 2 September 2015

    One might argue that nation-state democracy is still the best way of determining whether people want more globalization, and if so, at what pace. It strikes me that perhaps the most positive potential effect of globalization - eventually, over decades if not centuries - is the erosion of national sovereignty in favor of a more universalist global order.

  8. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    8
    Mircea Popescu 
    Wednesday, 2 September 2015

    It also strikes me that women naked in public are better than women in general, as it strikes any six year old that chocolate cake for breakfast is better than any breakfast. Generally these "strikes" have in common the unforeseen circumstance that they fail to foresee what they actually are saying, or in a word : stupidity.

  1. [...] expect most active in stupid people. Because who could have foreseen socialism as the obligatory ideology of the dumb, seriously [...]

  2. [...] this reason unaltruistic to your eyes, but this has nothing to do with your own stupidity and its necessary naufrage in ideology, it's just "how it is", right ? Nevermind that rich people have fewer kids than poor [...]

  3. [...] this is not open to any sort of discussion. I know you just want to... It doesn't [...]

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.