Orgy of the Will         |         Read         |         Subscribe         |         Discuss         |         Ask me anything

Praise for Orgy of the Will

Read icycalm's PUA book, Endgame: The End of PUA Theory

Follow icycalm on Gab

1794. Cultural supervision

1793. The entrance to the rabbit hole

1792. Christian decisions

1791. Ghastly taste

1790. Almost Spartan

1789. My home

1788. The crudest -ism

1787. Inhuman

1786. The final war

1785. The rankest, darkest filth

1784. The true brown contribution

1783. Cargo culture

1782. indian uniqueness

1781. Divergent sacrifices

1780. Independence Day

1779. Let there be sickness!

1778. Carl Jung and the Jews

1777. Inhuman books

1776. The meaning of stupidity

1775. Supermom

1774. Homo faggotisticus

1773. Wordplay as philosophy

1772. Giving up on alien life

1771. In praise of centrism

1770. Superiority my ass

1769. Poor homosexuals

1768. Just keep reading

1767. Bronze Age Faggotry

1766. Why I don't have time for you

1765. Escaping africa

1764. Colonization versus conquest

1763. While waiting for my weapons

1762. The real Europeans

1761. The ultimate exercise

1760. To Elysium

1759. What's in a name?

1758. Nordic thinking

1757. icycalm's anthropology

1756. Competing with words

1755. Too lazy to sell out

1754. Garland's Civil War

1753. Beneath Geneva

1752. Get used to it

1751. Disaster champions

1750. After the sinking

1749. Hail Mary

1748. A night to remember

1747. Too stupid to keep breathing

1746. The magic question

1745. The 7 Tribes of Intellect

1744. Behind the teleprompter

1743. Advanced decadence

1742. Sue me

1741. My kids' school

1740. The American Way

1739. The greatest plot

1738. The Age of Pew-pew

1737. Rome would not be insulted

1736. Orgy of the will

1735. An author more like you

1734. The ugliest sound

1733. Christianity as anti-logos

1732. It's just browns

1731. Monotheistic fatalism

1730. (Game) Mastering wisdom

1729. Theory of sanity

1728. My land

1727. Comical impatience

1726. The secret of my success

1725. Critical race theory

1724. The gayest race

1723. The oblivion they deserve

1722. Destroying homo sapiens

1721. The need for a new species

1720. Let there be antidepressants!

1719. The eternal beggars

1718. Shutting yourself down

1717. All-powerful begging

1716. Until the PUAs showed me

1715. Blocking whiners

1714. The solution to whining

1713. Slavery as culture

1712. Principles of a Superhuman State

1711. Getting things done

1710. Double perfection

1709. When Aryans aren't involved

1708. Fuck faggots

1707. Sculpting Aphrodite

1706. Signing off on philosophy

1705. European diversity and the greatest book ever

1704. The best marriage ever

1703. Why the age of kings is past

1702. A novel idea

1701. Against the Greeks

1700. This is Musk country!

1699. The most dangerous disease

1698. To be powerful or not to be?

1697. 400 years of dumb

1696. Philosophical race

1695. Why girls like Spaniards

1694. Poorfag psychology

1693. Slavic peasants

1692. Quantum worldbuilding

1691. Proud heritages

1690. Where all the food goes

1689. Literary breeding

1688. Despised baseness

1687. Real heritage

1686. A package deal

1685. On propertarianism

1684. Non-White non-guilt

1683. Empty love

1682. Jewish relativity

1681. Quantum Romans

1680. Business strategy

1679. Status apes

1678. Not always

1677. The new wildlife videos

1676. Life and its environment

1675. Teaching Anglo-Saxons

1674. The Nth Coming

1673. Ogres like Putin

1672. Laying foundations

1671. The Bastardization Process

1670. The new Turing test

1669. The redneck's place

1668. Gay civilization

1667. The superior response

1666. Begging for it

1665. Misdirected hatred

1664. There can be only... two?

1663. Getting on with work

1662. Zooming out of stupidity

1661. brown extinction

1660. Brain tempo

1659. Try Greek

1658. They had it coming

1657. Peak intelligence

1656. Reading as thinking

1655. Does it count?

1654. My own private monad

1653. The greatest nation

1652. Knowing how to disappear

1651. In God's mind

1650. Our intellectual superiors

1649. The ultimate solution

1648. The greatest thinker

1647. The midwit app

1646. icycalm's challenge

1645. Us versus Them

1644. From the horse's mouth (II)

1643. The greater humiliation

1642. The great experiment

1641. Enjoying holes

1640. Why anyone can beat Christians

1639. Defending filth

1638. brown filth

1637. Gone in 40 seconds

1636. Picking books or cotton

1635. What I can give

1634. Weasel wisdom

1633. Competing with us

1632. God's believers

1631. The cruelty of integration

1630. What terrifies us

1629. Good news

1628. Public philosophy

1627. Crying and screaming

1626. Megalocoincidences

1625. The ultimate simulation

1624. My own reader

1623. It's me

1622. God's magic

1621. Forsaken boost

1620. Holy Ganking

1619. Ultimate programming

1618. Ode to Ice Queens

1617. Excelling at exams

1616. Eternal thoughts

1615. Why I am poor

1614. The most interesting place and time

1613. For a few dollars more

1612. Debased movies

1611. Not working together

1610. Weak history

1609. True power

1608. Imperfect God

1607. Critics not philosophers

1606. Read everywhere

1605. Old icy

1604. Paying the poor

1603. Too gay for thought

1602. The subject and its audience

1601. It's coming

1600. The stupidest debate

1599. Satan as game designer (II)

1598. The universe as anti-concept

1597. The whole continuum

1596. Developing lies

1595. Will to tautology

1594. Abandoned art

1593. Machine Gun Icy

1592. Not psychological

1591. The inhumane solutions

1590. No matter where we go

1589. In praise of day traders

1588. Dismissing species

1587. Strawberry supremacy

1586. Capitalizing stupidity

1585. In praise of free speech

1584. The begging genre

1583. The order of rank of drives

1582. The most inclusive game

1581. The Birth of Thought out of the Spirit of Rivalry

1580. Castoriadis on autonomy

1579. The greatest commandment

1578. Microhiving

1577. The boringest people ever

1576. The real seducer

1575. Not Prometheus

1574. In praise of open borders

1573. On every page

1572. Where I am from

1571. Not for the patient

1570. Psychosomatic harmony

1569. Beauty in aphorisms

1568. Watch out

1567. Artistic adaptation

1566. The way they leech from us

1565. Of monads and their windowlessness

1564. Dipshit Psychology

1563. Psychological priorities

1562. Technocratic greatness

1561. All-in culture

1560. The opposite of money

1559. Of Greek and German exceptions

1558. asian punk

1557. The greatest inferiority complex

1556. Athletic aristocracy

1555. Parallel universes

1554. The size of the universe

1553. Satan as game designer

1552. Zero to hero

1551. Universe of pain

1550. How God spends his time

1549. Where we'll be

1548. How my brain works

1547. Gay universe

1546. Not land-owners

1545. The best porn

1544. Musk's lot

1543. Triumph of the will

1542. Apex of loyalty

1541. chinese cowardice

1540. Everything you've ever loved

1539. The problem with money

1538. Of life and art

1536. Of myth and music

1536. Just to spite you

1535. Mere intelligence

1534. Intellectual dominance

1533. American greatness

1532. Math

1531. Hate and envy

1530. The fate of races

1529. Museum of "Modern Art"

1528. Infinite deaths

1527. Karma

1526. When I become rich

1525. If I have kids

1524. The whole point

1523. Of those who don't read books

1522. Experimental metaphysics

1521. Excelling in practice

1520. Too lazy to read the news

1519. No place in the Elysian future

1518. Bill Gates as Educator

1517. Pathologizing femininity

1516. Removing details

1515. The origin of simping

1514. How the real world came to be

1513. Everyone else's someone else

1512. The strongest information

1511. Retarded pseudo-Conans

1510. The psychology of the WEF

1509. Being ourselves

1508. Against the fascists

1507. Brain training

1506. Too much happiness

1505. The greatest achievement

1504. The price for our existence

1503. Why you are microscopic

1502. Thinking animals

1501. The eternity you wish for

1500. The joyful teacher












































































































































































































































































































1200. Our past and future pets

1199. That blond boy

1198. Thick thoughts

1197. God as game designer (I)

1196. From my sentbox

1195. Training of the will

1194. Europa

1193. What annoys us

1192. Infinity patience

1191. Biblical rage

1190. Not the same

1189. What life and death means

1188. Teaching the hateful student

1187. The antithesis of power

1186. Just stop

1185. Third-world economics

1184. Orgy of insecurity

1183. Black children

1182. The best of things

1181. Everything's in a name

1180. White man's burden

1179. On the genealogy of civilization

1178. An education

1177. The final exam


1175. african holidays

1174. The divine moment

1173. Making babies

1172. Sons of Odin

1171. Our own captains

1170. The shitholes you deserve

1169. Tim Rogers's magnum opus

1168. Mythos versus Logos

1167. The creation of creation

1166. The Great White Culling

1165. In praise of Gab

1164. Our female versions

1163. The thin white line

1162. The rising tide of color

1161. One sacrifice at a time

1160. Not your friends

1159. Who built this country

1158. Uniquely evil

1157. The real you

1156. The praying man

1155. Our black ancestors

1154. The true Greek blacks

1153. The fake wonders of the world

1152. For the joy of thought

1151. Too stupid to give up

1150. Ruling animals

1149. What I learned from videogames

1148. Never

1147. The good immigrants

1146. From the horse's mouth

1145. Engineering biodiversity

1144. Bad pairings

1143. Where my money's at

1142. Turning science into magic

1141. Not a surfer

1140. Wrong assumptions

1139. Incapable of maturity

1138. Only gamers will understand

1137. Made in Greece

1136. Winner takes all

1135. Born for music

1134. Requiem for the Third World

1133. Too dumb for theory

1132. Supermen of the world unite!

1131. Race Wars!

1130. The half-breeds are the future

1129. Against sightseeing

1128. A Tale of Two Breeds

1127. The tragedy of the half-breeds

1126. My creativity

1125. Homo republicanis

1124. God's game

1123. Your people

1122. A reasonable proposal

1121. Networking

1120. Strong versus weak suicide

1119. Agents of chaos

1118. The ultimate rule

1117. Why God hates fags

1116. Doubled-up Hollywood and the greatest art critic

1115. The last American

1114. The future of race in art

1113. Big dick intelligence

1112. The stage of perfection

1111. Hoarding stupidity

1110. Why the future's male

1109. Too stupid to grasp Nature

1108. Still hiding in their castle

1107. Leave none alive

1106. I met them in prison

1105. The South Remembers

1104. What will be

1103. Segregation 2: The Apartheidening

1102. The freedom of an unthinking species

1101. Genuine tolerance of the intolerant

1100. The biggest fucking losers

1099. Businessmen as creators

1098. Muh lived experience

1097. The coming chaos

1096. Unfettered capitalism and socialism degenerate

1095. At the peak

1094. The myth of inclusivity

1093. The real enemy

1092. Hell on earth

1091. The case for colonialism

1090. Making shitholes shittier since 1500

1089. Spirit Horse Of The Cherokee

1088. Only crime

1087. How it all ends

1086. A lunatic scheme

1085. Only cyberpunk

1084. Rediscovering barbarism

1083. Always the same movie

1082. Pets disgusting

1081. 100% me

1080. Once in a lifetime faggots

1079. Philosophy as anti-charity

1078. Work makes stupid

1077. The Twice-Made Great White Error

1076. Chesterton contra Nietzsche

1075. Effeminacy intrinsically depressive

1074. Comedians always liars

1073. For all our progress

1072. Our utopia

1071. The right way to do race-mixing

1070. The hardest accomplishments lead to God

1069. When the student becomes master

1068. Force versus power and the purpose of philosophy

1067. The worst women

1066. How men and women are indeed equal

1065. What is at stake in quantum mechanics

1064. Complexifying brains and shrinking penises

1063. Not respecting life

1062. It all begins with you

1061. Betrayed by the smallest of things

1060. The era of hyper-racism

1059. The noblest idea

1058. Constantly judging

1057. icycalm checking out

1056. The weirdest story of them all

1055. Turning giants into midgets

1054. Degrading languages

1053. Not made for theory

1052. The meaning of experience

1051. Rape culture


1049. The metrosexual era

1048. 100% pro-rape

1047. The ultimate orgy of the will

1046. How communism succeeded

1045. The most annoying language

1044. Boasting of their inferiority

1043. The ideology of bad manners

1042. Loathsomeness as destiny

1041. Camping is for low-energy morons

1040. Future war as videogame

1039. How I can condone mass murder

1038. "Therapy" and those who need it

1037. "Spirituality" zombies and their "cosmic forces"

1036. "Ragnar Redbeard" is Nietzsche fanfiction

1035. Fuck readers abusing my critique of specialization

1034. All websites except mine are shallow

1033. The real Wakanda

1032. "Hiking" and male emasculation

1031. Contempt for older people

1030. Shadowbanning and the supremacy of genetics

1029. The essential value of extermination

1028. Big tech bullying and the whip

1027. The center of philosophy

1026. Religion and the IQ-testosterone matrix

1025. Democracy as appeasement

1024. On the violence of the non-violent

1023. Ultimate vaccination theory

1022. The coming cataclysm

1021. The Antichrist and "the worldwide web"

1020. Misunderstandings of the "red pill"

1019. Why the left can't "meme"

1018. The abstraction of finance

1017. Locke, Leibniz and the consciousness of objects

1016. Learning to understand Baudrillard

1015. The obsession with subhuman extermination

1014. American masculinity

1013. Soaring higher

1012. Why God loves giving children cancer

1011. The Joker's politics

1010. Why do I charge more than any other writer on the internet for a subscription to my websites? It didn't use to be this way. I started off offering low-priced tiers at $5 or even $1 per month like everyone else. But then what happened was that some people would subscribe for a while, and then unsubscribe when the frequency of my posts would decrease, only to resubscribe at a later time when I would resume posting more frequently. This was easily 50%+ of the readers and it was infuriating. There I was, posting the greatest philosophical aphorisms and art theory essays in the history of mankind, and some retarded nameless schmucks were essentially telling me that they weren't worth five dollars! It's not about the money, fuck your fucking five dollars, it's that you're fucking forcing me to be exposed to your shitty mindset every fucking month! I know you think so basely and meanly of culture that you'd spend less on quality reading than fapping material, but I don't want to be fucking reminded of it every time I visit my fucking sites and receive my fucking income reports! (especially on the last couple of days of the month when those dipshits would suddenly forget that "you changed my life" and would remember how important to their financial health their shitty five dollars had suddenly become). Moreover this shitty behavior continuously incentivized me to lower the quality of my output by churning out many lower-effort essays as opposed to fewer higher-effort ones. I could literally see my earnings spike every time I posted a bunch of reviews of random games in quick succession! Didn't those Einsteins understand that that's precisely the kind of behavior that creates armies of pandering journalists who have nothing to say yet end up saying far more than those who do, and flooding society with their pointless, inane and ultimately even harmful chatter? Had they not understood a single thing that I or any other genius before me had explained to them? Did they not value any of it? And that was obviously the truth at the bottom of the matter. I am not saying that any of those wretches were deliberately trying to annoy me by treating my sites in the same inconsiderate way that I might perhaps treat say The Economist or Netflix, and I am sure this entire analysis will be news to them because they literally have not the faintest clue of the consequences of their shitty actions or the baseness of the psychology they betray, but the end result was the same nevertheless: to annoy and disgust me every month by repeatedly exposing their psychology to me right in my fucking face! "But icy, what if they simply couldn't afford the five dollars?" I have news for your buddy, if you can't afford five dollars per month you're SCUM. There's just no plainer, more honest way to put it. If you're living in an advanced society in the 21st century and you're genuinely interested in cutting-edge philosophy and videogames that cost hundreds of dollars per year and require thousand-dollar computers to run, you can certainly afford five dollars per month to spend on quality reading material, and merely the daily running commentary and discussion of current events that I post on my Discord is worth ten times as much, not to mention everything else I publish. So keep your stupid five dollars and stick it up your subhuman butt, and stay the fuck away from me and my sites. I know full well that you exist, and I understand your psychology perfectly, so I don't need to be reminded of it every time I log into my sites and access my statistics reports. I go to my sites to relax from a society that's flooded with your kind, not to be reminded that my ancestors stupidly decided to ban slavery and let you and your kind run loose, and by setting my minimum subscription rate, first at $10 per month and finally—when even that failed to get rid of most of the riff-raff—at $25, I am screening out the vast majority of you. By asking for more money, in short, I get HIGHER-QUALITY HUMAN BEINGS, plain and simple, and whether the rest can't afford me or think that I am not worth the expense is all the same in the end, and betrays precisely the type of subhuman capacities and subhuman mindsets that my entire philosophy is committed to combatting to the last word, and the last breath, amen.

1009. Scientists still swear up and down that there's a fundamental difference between the classical behavior of the universe at macro scales, and the quantum behavior observed at the micro level, but that's only because the type of scientist who understands the micro levels has not the faintest clue of how the macro levels operate, and vice versa. Take for example the double-slit experiment. Its philosophical significance is that the particle's behavior is ultimately dominated by the observer's will; the particle will simply go wherever the scientist consciously wants it to go, depending on how he sets up the experiment, and the only conclusion the scientist will arrive at, no matter how many times he runs the experiment, is his own will. And this is where the quantum mechanists throw their hands up in the air and despair, pathetically exclaiming that "THAT'S NOT AT ALL HOW REALITY FUNCTIONS AT THE MACRO LEVEL, THIS IS A BRAND-NEW, RADICALLY DIFFERENT TYPE OF BEHAVIOR!" And yet isn't that precisely how pyschologists observe that people function under examination, in interviews for example? Doesn't the way the interviewer poses the question radically alter the type of answer he gets? Don't people always end up getting the types of answers they are looking for, at the end of the day? Isn't the infinite way in which statistics can be interpreted "a type of wish-fulfillment" as Baudrillard has strikingly noted? So there is no fundamental difference between the macro and quantum scales, it just takes a genius who understands both to connect the dots and reconcile the apparent contradictions.

1008. Wanna talk slavery reparations? Let's talk reparations. How about reparations for your physically superior ancestors chasing our physically inferior ancestors out of Africa so that they were forced to go north, away from Africa's Garden of Eden and towards the freezing, barren steppes of Europe? Or you've never heard about that episode because you're too dumb to study anthropology and understand anything about it?
   So shut the fuck up about reparations before I lose my patience and show you exactly what can be done with the superior intelligence that my ancestors were forced to develop in the cold, harsh north.

1007. Why are there no White Studies courses at universities?
   The faggotcube will say "because racism", borrowing the inferior tactics of their inferior enemies.
   But I say because the entire university is devoted to white studies, every single course in it, and if the faggotcube scribblers had had any decent amount of education they'd have figured this out by now.
   It's not so much anti-racists being racists that's the problem, but that both groups are GIANT FLAMING FAGGOTS who are more concerned about the past than the future and who find petty tribal wars (and merely verbal wars moreover) easier to handle than relativity and quantum mechanics, not to mention eugenics and cyberenhancement surgeries that will power the wars of extermination against subhumans of all races that are coming.
   But they are coming, and if you're still arguing about what happened in Africa or India 1000 years ago when they come, you'll be the very first ones to go down.

1006. What is the relationship of non-whites to the manosphere? You will note that, for reasons I've already explained, I normally refer to the "manosphere" as faggotcube, but in the context of the present analysis I'll use the name they chose because, compared to the dumb-as-fuck/effeminate shenanigans of the non-whites, the whites who run the manosphere are indeed men, if not giants.
   So not to mince words, and get straight to the point, the manosphere is clearly a white creation, and non-whites' involvement is marginal and fragmentary at best, as in all higher areas of culture. If you manage to find a couple of counter-examples, all you'll be doing is proving my point, so why bother? All the theory has been written by whites, all the experiments and movements have been carried out and headed up by them, and all the on- and offline nodes of power are owned by them, with the biggest of them being the White House itself, currently occupied by Emperor Donald J. Trump, who is the ultimate incarnation and personification of the movement. (I have nothing at all to do with this movement, I am something much bigger and much older coming from an entirely different tradition and I am frankly appalled by a good half of what the movement champions, nota bene).
   Now, a few years ago, the manosphere merely consisted of a bunch of loosely-connected PUA blogs, but today everything from Breitbart to Ann Coulter to Jordan Peterson and the generals who commanded the al-Baghdadi and Soleimani assassinations, including most of the nations of Hungary, Poland and Russia, are on the manosphere spectrum somewhere, so a detailed analysis of the movement would be sprawling, and to be frank not very interesting to me; but what one CAN deduce very quickly by surveying the entire movement—at least if one is a genius, like me—is the COMMON THREAD that runs through all these people. And that thread is, indeed, white supremacy, more specifically straight white male supremacy. Yes, even Coulter, and she admits her inferiority to men in countless places.
   And this is where non-whites come in. Because the common thread among non-whites in their reaction to the manosphere is that, unlike Coulter, the non-whites do NOT admit their inferiority (and why does Coulter admit it? Because as a straight white female she wants to be fucked by straight white males, but straight non-white males do not want that, get it?) The majority of them are simply AGAINST the movement tout court (after all, one of the main reasons the movement was born was to push back against non-whites in their flagrant invasion of our countries, so it makes perfect sense that non-whites would be against it), and the few of them that are with it simply ignore the issue of race and focus on whatever issues interest them. Some are interested in pushing back against sexual deviancy. Others are interested in pushing back against socialism. Others just want to learn PUA tactics to improve their sexual lives. So their attitude has traditionally been to grab whatever little things from the movement they could carry, and run away with them, while condemning the movement as a whole. Typical barbarian attitude in other words.
   The best demonstration of this is indeed what happened in the PUA scene. The PUA scene is, again, completely dominated by whites. Black people barely read, let alone write anything (in the entire 15 years I've been a webmaster of several websites achieving countless millions of hits, I doubt I've reached a single serious reader from Africa, and I sure as hell have never encountered a serious writer from there), while Asians seem to utterly lack the kind of initiative and independence that is required to go out into the world and try bold new experiments, so though they do have high intelligence, they never actually get to use it on the cutting-edge of culture to create brand-new things, and are thus best relegated to reading about what whites have created and copying it as best they can, and perhaps refining it (the Japanese excel at this, which is why they modernized first, and the rest of Asia follows somewhere behind, each nation to a different degree depending on its ethnic makeup and particular set of capacities). Now the PUA scene is the least intellectual part of the manosphere for the simple reason that sex is the lowest human impulse. Maybe food blogs stand even lower, but you get my point. And since everyone likes sex, the whites' complete dominance of this field was bound to attract non-whites in the end, at least those of them who read. And this is exactly what happened, but with none of the non-white groups ever managing to integrate fully and harmoniously into the scene because the sexual marketplace is intrinsically massively racist for simple biological reasons that the white theorists analyzed with frank honesty that the non-whites were simply incapable of swallowing. How is the Asian guy to accept that he objectively stands at the bottom of the dating pole (we can measure this with surveys), due to his feminine physical and even mental features when it's so much easier to label everyone racist and move on? How is he to accept that white incels go to his country of ethnic origin and his own women prefer them to him? How is he to accept PUA terminology like "White God Factor (WGF)" when describing the objectively true phenomenon that white men clean up everywhere in Asia they go? Compounding the issue was the fact that the overwhelming majority of non-whites who reached the PUAsphere were and still are based in the West (almost no actual Asians in Asia or Indians in India or Africans in Africa ever leave their own parts of the internet long enough to reach foreign sites, let alone highly specialized intellectual ones), so not only are those people being told that they are biologically inferior, in some respects at least (because in say penis size or muscle tone blacks are superior, for example) but their sexual lives are even harder than those of their ethnic brethren who never emigrated for the simple reason that they live in countries where they are minorities, sometimes smaller minorities than even gays. The absolute best piece of advice one could give them to improve their sexual lives would therefore be to "Go back to your countries", but that's the epitome of racism, as far as they are concerned, and merely compounds the resentment problem, never mind that it's mathematically/statistically true. No one gives a shit about mathematics and statistics, when their pride has been wounded, and that's the entire history of non-whites' involvement in the PUAsphere in a nutshell, and by extension, in the manosphere as a whole.
   Now you can go on all day about Candace Owens and how cool she is, but the bottom line is that she's just a cute black chick regurgitating white theorists' decades-old talking points, and moreover the MOST HARMLESS of their talking points, the least offensive and most easily digestible by the masses. That's the entire history of everything from the manosphere that broke through to popular appeal, including Breitbart and above all Donald Trump (a process, by the way, whose workings I've already explained in detail in §315). The manosphere is rife with disgruntled old-timers who resent Trump, Breitbart, Peterson and so on for "selling out" their ideas by watering them down for the masses, but that's the only way to achieve anything without starting all-out civil and ethnic wars, faggots! What the fuck do you want, in the end? If you want a war, start it—like Breivik and Tarrant did—and if you're too much of a bunch of faggots for that, let the politicians and academics and journalists water down your ideas to a level that's acceptable for mass consumption so we can see what can be accomplished via peaceful means so that perhaps all-out genocide can be avoided. And if this fails, you'll still have the genocide option in the end. And in any case, even if all non-whites left the West, and all feminists went back to the kitchen, and all gays back in the closet, and all socialists got a job, we would STILL have to genocide the low-IQ whites at some point (3.5 million truck drivers are about to be laid off in the US alone), so the genocide is coming no matter what, and all ethnicities, all races and all sexes will be swept up in it soon enough and judged, don't worry about that. Compared to that coming war, the manosphere is just an amusing little interlude (which essentially boils down to effeminate men revolting against feminism and liberalism, which they themselves created by freeing their slaves and women), so enjoy it while it lasts and make the most of it, whatever your ethnicity, race and sexual orientation. For, if you think things are tough now, buddy, you have no idea what's coming.

1005. Journey of an Idea, from the heights of Genius to the Gutter.

1. Friedrich Wilhelm NIETZSCHE: There are no facts, only interpretations.

2. Jean BAUDRILLARD: You mean that all viewpoints are equal? That the simulacrum is never what hides the truth, that it is truth that hides the fact that there is none? That the simulacrum is true? That there's no reality??? Damn, how depressing!

3. Laurence and Andrew WACHOWSKI: You mean that there is a clear distinction between reality and illusion? Awesome idea bro, we wrote a movie about it, wanna help film it?

4. Jean BAUDRILLARD: I said NOTHING OF THE KIND! I in fact said THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you're saying! You are complete and utter morons and I want nothing to do with your stupid movie!

5. Laurence and Andrew WACHOWSKI: Ummmm, whatever bro, the movie's already out and your book is in the first scene, sorry. We're already working on the sequels!

6. Mencius MOLDBUG: Hmmmm, The Matrix is such an insightful movie! I especially liked the metaphor of the red and blue pill! Who'da thunk that the distinction between truth and lies is clear-cut and all you need to see it is swallow down a pill! Those Wachowskis are such geniuses! Let me now take this earth-shattering insight and apply it to all our contemporary issues!

7. Alex "ICYCALM" Kierkegaard: Uhhh, guys, Baudrillard simply misunderstood Nietzsche's perspectivism. Nietzsche wasn't saying that all interpretations are equal, he was merely saying that nothing exists besides interpretations and that it was the Overman's job to impose his own intepretation on his environment just as mankind has been doing since the beginning, and the animals before that all the way back to the Big Bang. [This user has been banned for this post.]

8. MANOSPHERE: Moldbug is such a genius! It all makes sense now! It's all THE JEWS' fault! (((THEY))) warped reality with all their evil blue pills! They... write books and stuff and they... make movies! DEATH TO THE JEWWWWWWWWWWWS!!!!!!!

1004. Nationalism as an ultimate ideology, as opposed to a temporary expedient, is so stupid even a child with elementary history knowledge could refute it. For pray tell, which nation managed to start out at the level of cavemen and reach all the way to modernity? Which nation managed to stay at the cutting-edge of culture for more than a few hundred years, at the most? Which race, for that matter? If you're determined to stick to a single nation or race or whatever other tribal group you fancy, you are doomed. And that insight too is contained in Heraclitus' flux concept. You either ride the wave, or you're drowned by it. And no wave lasts forever. So you better get good at jumping on to the next one. The West has so far managed this admirably, it's even the reason we're number 1; but there are no guarantees we'll keep it up forever, so it helps to realize it is a skill, and a vital one, and work at it as hard as we can. So let's keep working at it.

1003. This is how tomorrow's supermen will one day cut the cord that ties them to subhumans, with no arguments, no anger, and no discussion (one doesn't talk to animals) but merely with the Spartan, clinical language of a mundane software update as in the game Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth:

   All previous versions of humanity will no longer be supported as of this update.
   —Registry Update

1002. On the unfathomably wide reach and influence of the philosophers. Did you know that the DC Comics character Superman, who essentially launched the entire superhero fiction genre, was inspired by Nietzsche? It's true, look it up. He is basically a crude debasement, a caricature really, of Nietzsche's ideas on the subject (but that's okay because all art is caricature; that's the whole point of it). Would Nietzsche have enjoyed the Marvel movies that derive from the comic Superman, and dominate the art of the cinema today (and will soon dominate videogames too)?
   Of course he would enjoy them. I just told you he fucking made them didn't I.

1001. "A specialist is one who knows more and more about less and less, until at last he comes to know everything about nothing." —Anon

1000. For our analysis of civilization to be complete, and therefore correct, we must trace its development along all branches of knowledge: cultural and political as well as mechanical and biological. So let's start with the mechanical part, which I think is the easiest to grasp, especially for practical-minded people (what with most of you being from the Anglosphere, as I can tell by the site's statistics reports and membership of my inner circle...)
   Civilization is the cultural form of evolution, with the same goal as the biological kind: domination of the environment; power in a single word. Civilization accomplishes this in the same way as species do in the wild, by increasing the complexity of the organism, which in this case is not comprised of internal organs but of people, what is known as "human resources". Shorn of their independence as distinct and sovereign lifeforms, these civilized people (from Latin civilis meaning "civil", related to civis meaning "citizen" and civitas meaning "city", i.e. city-dwellers) leave behind the ways of the wild and of their animal and prehistoric tribal ancestors and begin to form groupings of increasing scale and complexity, with each member co-operating with the rest by specializing in an ever-increasing number of tasks of ever-narrowing scope, thereby achieving efficiencies and synergies that boost the group's power to such high levels that, to the uncivilized, their accomplishments seem nothing short of miraculous, which in a sense they are, as they bring forth artifacts and open up mindscapes that would most definitely have been impossible without this scheme of elaborate co-operation (a phenomenon which scientists call "emergence"). Very soon the civilized tower above the uncivilized to such an extent that they appear as gods to them worthy of worship, and in a real sense they are, since the gods of the uncivilized often appear, even in the latter's religious fantasies, as weaker and less capable than the civilized.
   But there is a price to be paid for all this newfound power of the group, and this price is the increasing weakening of the individuals that comprise it, as the history of civilization is simultaneously a history of increasing feminization, and no metaphor is more helpful to understanding this than that of the tool and workshop. As every mechanic knows, the more specialized the tool, the more useful it is for the main task for which it was designed, but the more useless for every other task. A hammer or a knife are simple, primitive tools that can therefore be used for a multitude of basic tasks, and if need be they make for fairly decent weapons too; but by the time you get to the kind of space-qualified, low-torque screwdrivers astronauts use in space station repairs or micro ligature devices neurosurgeons use to "accommodate and manipulate ligatures with maximum efficiency" you're talking about a tool built for a single task that is absolutely fucking useless for any other conceivable task, and so fragile it will break if you look at it the wrong way in the bargain. The same exact fate awaits the hypercivilized and therefore hyperspecialized man, and is indeed already evident all around us, and has been evident to some degree or other for over 6,000 years. Our goal now is to understand the cultural, social and biological processes of how this happens; of how the strong and fearless barbarian who dominated all prehistoric cultures comes at last to be transformed to what in philosophical terminology is known as the subhuman of modern culture, a creature so weak, stupid and pathetic that even women can dominate it and become masters of it; even, in some cases, animals. Once we have understood the genealogy of this clearly no longer human creature, we will by the same token have understood what we must do to prevent it from destroying civilization (and there's still plenty of time for that, don't worry); what should have been done in earlier times but wasn't done due to lacking philosophy; due to lacking that is to say an understanding of precisely what civilization is and how it functions.

999. You're always in control, to some degree or other, of the ideas inside your head, and therefore you're always in control of your reality, since only ideas can exist in heads and "there are no facts, only interpretations" (Nietzsche). However, the greater the scope of your thoughts—i.e. the more of the world they comprehend—the greater your control of them. This can be seen by considering that, though your imagination always has to work when perceiving anything, it has to work more the further removed you are from the objects you are perceiving. If I am standing next to you, the image you have of me is still ultimately your own work, but if I am half-way across the world from you your imagination has to build me up pretty much from scratch. That's how we get to Leibniz's windowless monads. As your brain greedily reaches out to comprehend more and more of the world around it, it has to do more and more work to build up the corresponding mental structure, and thus retreats further and further back inside its machinery, until by the time it has built up its complete picture of the world... it is entirely inside you, fully under your control, and has no relation whatsoever to anything that may or may not exist outside you. The concept of "outside" itself has become meaningless by that point, which is how the great Lichtenberg once arrived at the conclusion that "I now really do believe that the question whether objects outside of us possess objective reality makes no rational sense. ... The question is almost as ridiculous as asking whether the color blue is really blue. ... On this, read the Theatetus."

998. "Culture advances", we say, and we like to think that everything in it advances too, and at the same rate. But is an ant that lives in a sci-fi city a "sci-fi ant"? Have ants changed in any significant way at all while we advanced from prehistoric times to contemporary modernity? And if ants can stay the same while their entire environment levels up, with them barely even registering any of the changes, may not the same thing be possible with lifeforms other than ants? Aren't ants, at the end of the day, living in their own world pretty much regardless of whatever the fuck we're doing around them, or even to them? Do you think it makes a difference to them if they were squashed by a falling tree or ran over by an SUV? Can they even tell the difference? In fact, all lifeforms behave in this way, and that's how we can explain the miracle that the majority of homo sapiens on the planet still believe that God has a dick. (And whom does he use it on, if there are not supposed to be any goddesses around? The subhumans don't care any more than the ants care about the difference between a tree and an SUV. The ancients cared, so in their world there were lots of goddesses around for their gods to use their dicks on; pretty ones too, and therefore worthy of being dicked down by gods.) We all ultimately inhabit our own personal universe, cobbled together from precisely those parts of the actual universe that we like, and Leibniz's metaphor for this, which I fell in love with and instantly understood when I heard its name before I'd even looked into his definition of it is "windowless monads", monad being the Greek work for "unity". We are all windowless, incommunicative unities, in the grand scheme of things, and the idea that any of us has any effect on each other is merely a useful intellectual error on our way to becoming... who we are, who we were destined to be long before we'd even met each other, who we indeed have already been an infinite number of times, and will be an infinite number of times again, amen.

997. "Absolute or Relative Motion? Both Copernicus and Kepler believed that the universe, with the solar system at its centre, was bounded by a huge and distant rigid shell on which the luminous stars were fixed. They did not speculate what lay beyond – perhaps it was simply nothing. They defined all motions relative to the shell, which thus constituted an unambiguous framework. Many factors, above all Galileo’s telescopic observations in 1609 and the revival of interest in the Greeks’ idea of atoms that move in the void, destroyed the old cosmology. New ideas crystallized in a book that Descartes wrote in 1632. He was the first person to put forward clearly an idea which, half a century later, Newton would make into the most basic law of nature: if nothing exerts a force on them, all bodies travel through space for ever in a straight line at a uniform speed. This is the law of inertia. Descartes never published his book because in 1633 the Inquisition condemned Galileo for teaching that the Earth moves. The Copernican system was central to Descartes’s ideas, and to avoid Galileo’s fate he suppressed his book.
   He did publish his ideas in 1644, in his influential Principles of Philosophy, but with a very curious theory of relative motion as an insurance policy. He argued that a body can have motion only relative to some other body, chosen as a reference. Since any other body could play the role of reference, any one body could be regarded as having many different motions. However, he did allow a body to have one true ‘philosophical motion’, which was its motion relative to the matter immediately adjacent to it. (Descartes believed there was matter everywhere, so any body did always have matter adjacent to it.) This idea let him off the Inquisition’s hook, since he claimed that the Earth was carried around the Sun in a huge vortex, as in a whirlpool. Since the Earth did not move relative to the immediately adjacent matter of the vortex, he argued that it did not move!
   However, he then formulated the law of inertia, just as in 1632. When, sometime around 1670, long after Descartes’s death in 1650, Newton came to study his work, he immediately saw the flaw. To say that a body moves in a straight line presupposes a fixed frame of reference, which Descartes had denied. Since Newton could see the great potential of the law of inertia, to exploit it he came up with the concept of an immovable space in which all motion takes place. He was very scornful of Descartes’s inconsistency, and when he published his own laws in 1687 he decided to make it a big issue, without, however, mentioning Descartes by name. He introduced the notion of absolute space and, with it, absolute time.
   Newton granted that space and time are invisible and that one could directly observe only relative motions, not the absolute motions in invisible space. He claimed that the absolute motions could nevertheless be deduced from the relative motions. He never gave a full demonstration of this, only an argument designed to show that motion could not be relative. He was making a very serious point, but at the same time he wanted to make a fool of Descartes. This had strange and remarkable consequences.
   Descartes had sought to show that all the phenomena of nature could be explained mechanically by the motion of innumerable, tiny, invisible particles. Vital to his scheme was the centrifugal force felt as tension in a string that retains a swung object. The object seems to be trying to escape, to flee from the centre of rotation. In Newtonian terms, it is actually trying to shoot off along the tangent to the circle, but that is still a motion that would take it away from the centre and create the tension. Descartes claimed that light was pressure transmitted from the Sun to the Earth by centrifugal tension set up in the vortex that he pictured swirling around the Sun. Because centrifugal force was so important to Descartes, Newton used it to show that motion cannot be relative. Newton’s intention was to hoist Descartes by his own petard.
   Newton imagined a bucket filled with water and suspended by a rope from the ceiling. The bucket is turned round many times, twisting the rope, and is then held still until the water settles. When the bucket is released, the rope unwinds, twisting the bucket. Initially the surface of the water remains flat, but slowly the motion of the bucket is transmitted to the water, which starts to spin, feels a centrifugal force and starts to rise up the side of the bucket. After a while, the water and bucket spin together without relative motion, and the water surface reaches its greatest curvature.
   Newton asked what it was that caused the water’s surface to curve. Was it the water’s motion relative to the side of the bucket (Descartes’s claimed true philosophical motion relative to the immediately adjacent matter) or motion relative to absolute space? Surely the latter, since when the relative motion is greatest, at the start, there is no curvature of the water’s surface, but when the relative motion has stopped (and the water and bucket spin together) the curvature is greatest. This was Newton’s main argument for absolute space. It was strong and it ridiculed Descartes. In Newton’s lifetime, his notion of absolute space, to which he gave such prominence, attracted strong criticism. If space were invisible, how could you say an object moves in a straight line through a space you cannot see? Newton never satisfactorily answered this question. Many people felt, as Descartes did, that motion must be relative to other matter, though not necessarily adjacent matter. Bishop Berkeley argued that, as in Copernican astronomy, motion must ultimately be relative to the distant stars, but he failed to get to grips with the problem that the stars too must be assumed to move in many different ways and thus could not define a single fixed framework, as Copernicus and Kepler had believed.
   Newton’s most famous critic was the great German mathematician and philosopher Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz, who had been involved in a very unpleasant dispute with Newton about which of them had first discovered the calculus, the revolutionary new form of mathematics that made so many things in science much easier, including the development of mechanics. In 1715, Leibniz began a famous correspondence on Newton’s ideas with Samuel Clarke, who was advised by Newton. The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence has become a classic philosophy text. Many undergraduates study it, and philosophers of science often discuss it.
   The exchange had an inconclusive outcome. It is generally agreed that Leibniz advanced effective philosophical arguments, but he never addressed the detailed issues in mechanics. Typically, he argued like this. Suppose that absolute space does exist and is like Newton claimed, with every point of space identical to every other. Now consider the dilemma God would have faced when he created the world. Since all places in absolute space are identical, God would face an impossible choice. Where would he put the matter? God, being supremely good and rational, must always have a genuine reason for doing something – Leibniz called this the ‘principle of sufficient reason’ (I have already appealed to this when I discussed brain function and consciousness, by requiring an observable effect to have an observable cause) – and because absolute space offered no distinguished locations, God would never be able to decide where to put the matter. Absolute time, on the assumption that it existed, presented the same difficulty. Newton had said that all its instants were identical. But then what reason could God have for deciding to create the world at some instant rather than another? Again, he would lack a sufficient reason. For reasons like these, not all of them so theological, Leibniz argued that absolute space and time could not exist.
   A century and a half passed before the issue became a hot topic again. This raises an important issue: how could mechanics have dubious foundations and yet flourish? That it flourished nevertheless was due to fortunate circumstances that are very relevant to the theme of this book. First, although the stars do move, they are so far away that they provide an effectively rigid framework for defining motions as observed from the Earth. It was found that in this framework Newton’s laws do hold. It is hard to overestimate the importance of this fortunate effective fixity of the distant stars. It presented Newton with a wonderful backdrop and convenient framework. Had the astronomers been able to observe only the Sun, Moon and planets but not the stars (had they been obscured by interstellar dust), Newton could never have established his laws. Thus, scientists were able to accept Newton’s absolute space as the true foundation of mechanics, using the stars as a substitute for the real thing – that is, a true absolute frame of reference. They also found that Newton’s uniformly flowing time must march in step with the Earth’s rotation, since when that was used to measure time (in astronomical observations spanning centuries, and even millennia) Newton’s laws were found to hold. Once again, a substitute for the ‘real thing’ was at hand. One did not have to worry about the foundations. Fortunate circumstances like these are undoubtedly the reason why it is only recently that physicists have been forced to address the issue of the true nature of time.
   The person who above all brought the issue of foundations back to the fore was the Austrian physicist Ernst Mach, whose brilliant studies in the nineteenth century of supersonic projectiles and their sonic boom are the reason why the Mach numbers are named after him. Mach was interested in many subjects, especially the nature and methods of science. His philosophical standpoint had points in common with Bishop Berkeley, but even more with the ideas of the great eighteenth-century Scottish empiricist David Hume. Mach insisted that science must deal with genuinely observable things, and this made him deeply suspicious of the concepts of invisible absolute space and time. In 1883 he published a famous history of mechanics containing a trenchant and celebrated critique of these concepts. One suggestion he made was particularly influential.
   It arose as a curious consequence of the covert way Newton had attacked Descartes. Considering Newton’s bucket argument, Mach concluded that, if motion is relative, it was ridiculous to suppose that the thin wall of the bucket was of any relevance. Mach had no idea that Newton was attacking Descartes’s notion of the one true philosophical motion, just as Newton had not seen that Descartes had invented it only to avoid the wrath of the Inquisition. Newton had used the bucket argument to show that relative motion could not generate centrifugal force, but Mach argued that the relative motions that count are the ones relative to the bulk of the matter in the universe, not the puny bucket. And where is the bulk of the matter in the universe? In the stars.
   This led Mach to the revolutionary suggestion that it is not space but all the matter in the universe, exerting a genuine physical effect, that creates centrifugal force. Since this is just a manifestation of inertial motion, which Newton claimed took place in absolute space, Mach’s proposal boiled down to the idea that the law of inertia is indeed, as Bishop Berkeley believed, a motion relative to the stars, not space. Mach’s important novelty was that there must be proper physical laws that govern the way distant matter controls the motions around us. Each body in the universe must be exerting an effect that depends on its mass and distance. The law of inertia will turn out to be a motion relative to some average of all the masses in the universe. For this basic idea, Einstein coined the expression Mach’s principle, by which it is now universally known (though attempts at precise definition vary quite widely).
   Mach’s idea suggests that the Newtonian way of thinking about the workings of the universe, which is still deep-rooted, is fundamentally wrong. The Newtonian scheme describes an ‘atomized’ universe. The most fundamental thing is the containing framework of space and time: that exists before anything else. Matter exists as atoms, tiny unchanging masses that move in space and time, which govern their motion. Except when close enough to interact, the atoms move with complete indifference to one another, each following a straight and lonely path through the infinite reaches of absolute space. The Machian idea takes the power from space and time and gives it to the actual contents of the universe, which all dance in their motions relative to one another. It is an organic, holistic view that knits the universe together. Very characteristic is this remark of Mach in his Science of Mechanics (pp.287-8):

"Nature does not begin with elements, as we are obliged to begin with them. It is certainly fortunate for us that we can, from time to time, turn aside our eyes from the overpowering unity of the All and allow them to rest on individual details. But we should not omit ultimately to complete and correct our views by a thorough consideration of the things which for the time being we have left out of consideration."

   Mach himself made only tentative suggestions for a new relative mechanics, but his remarks caught the imagination of many people, above all Einstein, who said that Hume and Mach were the philosophers who had influenced him most deeply. Einstein spent many years trying to create a theory that would embody Mach’s principle, and initially believed that he had succeeded in his general theory of relativity. That is why he gave it that name. However, after a few years he came to have doubts. Eventually he concluded that Mach’s idea had been made obsolete by developments in physics, especially the theory of electro-magnetism developed by Faraday and Maxwell, which had introduced new concepts not present in Newton’s scheme.
   Throughout the twentieth century, physicists and philosophers discussed Mach’s principle at great length, without coming to any conclusion. It is my belief that the problem lies in Einstein’s highly original but indirect approach. Mach had not made a really clear proposal, and Einstein never really stopped and asked himself just what should be achieved by Mach’s principle. I shall consider this in Part 3, but I need to anticipate a small part of the story in order to justify Part 2. Einstein’s theory is rather complicated and achieves several things at once. It is not easy to separate the parts and see the ‘Machian’ structure. In my opinion, general relativity is actually as Machian as it could be. What is more, it is the Machian structure that has such dramatic consequences when one tries to reconcile the theory with quantum mechanics. If, as I believe, the quantum universe is timeless, it is so because of the Machian structure of general relativity. To explain the core issues, I need a simplified model that captures the essentials. This Part 2 will provide. It will also provide a direct link between the great early debate about the foundations of mechanics and the present crisis of quantum cosmology. Two key issues are still the same: what is motion, and what is time? It will also enable me to explain the main work in physics with which I have been involved, and make it easier for you to see why I have come to doubt the existence of time.
   Science advances in curious ways, and scientists are often curiously unconcerned with foundations. Descartes was one of the greatest philosophers, yet in that first book in 1632 he never gave a moment’s thought to the definition of motion. We are so used to living on the solid Earth that it seems unproblematic to say that a body moves in a straight line. If the Inquisition had not condemned Galileo, Descartes would never have argued for the relativity of motion. But for the inconsistency of his system, Newton would not have made an issue out of absolute space and time. He would not have devised the bucket argument, Mach might never have had his novel idea, and Einstein would not have been inspired to his greatest creation.
   Had the Inquisition condemned Galileo a few months later, Descartes would have published his ideas in their original form – and general relativity might never have been found." —From Julian Barbour, The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics 2001

If the above story, and similar ones to it, doesn't seem to you as one of the most interesting things you've ever read—so much more interesting than any novel or movie or artwork of any kind let alone politics or current events stories it's not even funny—and you don't immediately vow to yourself on encountering it to learn all that exists about it and understand it inside and out better than even the people who took part in it, correcting all their mistakes on the way and completing all the parts they left uncompleted to such a degree that there'll be nothing left for future generations to add to it after you're gone... you understand nothing of the insane level of curiosity and greed and ambition and thirst for sheer complexity that powers men like me; you're nothing like me, and you're not the kind of reader that I seek and hope to reach with this book.

996. Low-IQ people want the world simple, they fight against complexification of life and the world in all its forms, while high-IQ people do the opposite: they complexify life and the world until it mirrors their brains' complexity, and fight against simplification. Who will win? Well, since culture and civilization are synonymous with complexification, we all take sides according to our IQs, and the result of the ensuing struggle is the fate of culture and civilization. Simple, no?
   Not so fast, young Padawan. Because the piece of complexification known as quantum mechanics has the power to shape, not only the future, but even the past... You won't walk away from this without coming up against advanced physics, I am afraid, so prepare yourself as best you can.

995. The golden age of the British Empire was one of the great heights of the history of mankind—indeed, the only one that compares, in its energies, accomplishment, confidence, and forward propulsion, with the American golden age that peaked in the 1980s.
   There are few images of the past that have greater potency than that of the impeccably dressed colonial Englishman, wandering about some unspeakably humid or unbearably dry 100-degree hellhole in utter command of his mind and powers, in complete confidence of his ability to exercise control over things on the ground and solve the problems at hand. A couple of handfuls of these characters could run massive countries and keep the trains running on time like no one before or since. And they did it with a dismissive shrug that denoted a complete lack of understanding of how anyone could do any less.
   There is very little in the history of the world in terms of practical accomplishment for an American to look up to; the American stands at the summit. But if one reads something like the great memoir about the voyage of Shackleton's Endurance one is brought up against a strength that is different in quality than the American strength; and—in some ways—superior. One looks back across time and across the Atlantic, and sees a human height that was in its own manner more extraordinary than any other.
   The complaints about "colonialism" are a wretched species of the ahistorical whining that has infested the thinking of the past century and was never more prevalent than now. What could be more useless than to prattle about the men of the past with a mincing pajama boy's appeal to "ethics", as if that chatter category exists outside of historical contingencies and needs to be measured according to the latest bien pensant standards—which will themselves crumble at the least contact with reality. Suffice it to say that the British more than any other colonial power left their subjects better off than they found them; and they displayed before the civilizations they conquered a spectacle of competence, diligence and civic virtue so extravagant that some of it could not help but rub off.
   I'd like to speak in particular to the young and proud Indian guys of today. The truth is that the encounter between England and India was one of the great fortuities of human history; it allowed a great civilization that was in its absolute prime to spark life into a much older and much different civilization, that also had greatness in its spirit but had been dormant for too long. Without that spark, and all that India learned at the hands of the English, it would never be on the promising course that it is on now, a course that may well make it one of the great vital powers of the future. India was jolted to life by the British—and given further life by the now intimate relation of its exiles to America in particular. Young Indians, and young Americans of Indian origin, should never succumb to futile and draining grievance-mongering about the past; they should feel confident in their current place and trajectory, enjoy the twinned energies of their native and adopted countries, and understand how the defeats of the past are mere fodder for the victories of the future.
   As far as England itself goes, it is of course in a state of abeyance and is far from its great golden age—though there are qualities in some young Englishmen of today that make one see that the really superb stock is not exhausted quite yet. I take mystical hope from the genius of Led Zeppelin—as great an eruption of English verve as any that has existed—and this line from their masterpiece "Achilles' Last Stand". Let Page and Plant have the last word:

   Oh Albion remains, sleeping now to rise again

994. On the origins of rape and manhood in general. Imagine the Viking. Comes home covered in blood, someone's brain fragments still lodged in his mace. You think a woman would nag at him? You think he would tolerate anyone's nagging at all? He's just returned from hell, from a battlefield where half his friends were butchered, where he butchered half a dozen men in cold blood, his face up against theirs as the light faded from their eyes and the color drained from their cheeks. He faced certain death, and though presently victorious, he still has no idea if he'll die tomorrow in the next battle, and you think he'll bother asking anyone for permission to fuck his wife tonight? You think that wife would dare say no to him even if she wanted to? You think ANYONE on God's green earth would dare say no to such a character? (and btw, to PUAs reading this, this guy is beta, the alpha is his king and gammas don't exist at all because they died in childbirth). That's how masculinity works. Everything else is faggotry. "I do what I want up to the limits of my strength and no one can stop me" is masculinity 101, and white knighting is the exact opposite of that. If you think that anyone should, let alone COULD, ever have rights over and above this type of character—let alone such a pathetic midwit creature as a female—you are a faggot, and you do well to believe in such rights because they are the only things standing between you and annihilation or slavery; convincing half the warriors to protect you from the other half (cops vs. robbers) is the only way a non-warrior has of surviving in this world, after all.
   Now imagine such a character—this fearless Viking warrior—returning from the dead and taking a look at our society today, at men abandoned by their women, their families destroyed; at women running courtrooms and entire countries, passing judgement on men and telling them how to live their lives. How would he react to such a sight? I think he'd shake his head in disbelief and say, "What happened to men? Why are there no men today? Where did they all go?" He wouldn't blame feminism, or society, or some religion or philosophy; he wouldn't know any of that stuff, he'd be immune to such ridiculous phantasms. He would look purely at the REALITY in front of his eyes not at the stupid counter-factual ideas of contemporary midwits ABOUT this reality, and this reality would simply be that "There are no men left alive today". And of course, everything that's not men deserves slavery, whether to a state, a corporation or a nagging female is immaterial: most likely to all of them at the same time. If you don't have it in you to beat the shit out of a woman until she's blue in the face and cowering in a corner like an animal and then fuck her brains out without the slightest hint of guilt you are an ABORTION of a male, and not a man, dear reader; possibly a child who has yet to grow and understand the nature of life and the universe (but, statistically, most probably a faggot). As if I'd seek the consent of random people before I fucked someone! As if the only thing keeping me back from fucking anything I want in the street were not the threat of death or incarceration by an entire army of policemen who spend their whole lives training to stop precisely men like me from doing whatever the hell we want on this earth! (which we were doing with impunity pretty much up to the invention of civilization). Y'all are FAGGOTS, you hear me? You "disapprove" of what I have to say? I want you DEAD, you hear? With your entire line extinguished for good measure, to lessen the chance of the spread of faggotry on the planet. It used to be that creatures like you would not even dare LOOK at people like me, and this state of things will return, or the species will be annihilated. We'll join the aliens AGAINST YOU if need be. That's how much masculinity despises faggotry and weakness.

   P.S. Women evolved to deal with guys like HIM, and you wonder how they managed to turn YOU into their little bitch?

993. If the future is cerebral, as I have said it will be, it therefore probably follows that the future is Asian. So we can divide the history of mankind into three eras. In the first era, of physical struggle against the elements and animals, the black man dominates. In the middle era, we start to move away from pure physical struggle to the mental arena, where independence of thought and inventiveness are needed above all, which is where the white man becomes prominent. Finally, we arrive at the near-pure mental era where the Asian man with his larger brain takes over. However, cyberpunk comes into this and says you no longer have to choose, you can have the best of all worlds, the black man's athleticism, the Asian man's intelligence, and the white man's inventiveness and independence. Ecce Superman.
   "And what about native Americans?", asked the eager shop assistant.
   We like their viciousness, it's awesome, put some of that in our child too, said the happy smiling couple in the year of our lord icycalm, 2077.

992. As the scale and scope of warfare increase—in concert with advancing civilization—the contest becomes increasingly cerebral, and as a consequence the leaders naturally remove themselves further and further from the front. Let's understand exactly how this works.
   In the context of a tribal dispute, in prehistoric times, the leader need be no more than a strong brute, ideally the strongest brute in the tribe. Since there's not much scope for tactics in say a 5v5 brawl with rocks and clubs, intelligence is unnecessary while brute strength leading the charge can be a powerful inspiration to weaker warriors. By the time you get to entire armies clashing, however, even if it's just with swords and spears, there is considerable tactical depth to each engagement, not to mention the diverse strategies employed in the ongoing wars between the states, all of which were unknown to primitive tribes, so it no longer makes any sense to endanger your tacticians and strategists by throwing them at the front. One warrior more or less won't make any difference there, when the clashes entail tens of thousands, whereas one tactician or strategist less (or less smart) can mean the difference between victory and defeat. After all, it's well known that entire armies can disperse—even if they have the upper hand—just because a leader fell, or was merely incapacitated. When the brain coordinating everything dies, the organism follows suit, whether at the scale of individual organisms, or social ones. Think of it in another way too: what are the chances that the strongest man in the state will also be the smartest? Even ignoring for a moment that mental gifts are far rarer in the homo sapiens species than physical ones, it's simply highly statistically unlikely that the strongest man—who would have been the leader in prehistoric times—will also be the smartest, who SHOULD be the leader in more advanced times. So almost by definition the best tacticians and strategists will be weaker physically than the typical soldier on the front. Now, we are told that Alexander always led the charge, and was reportedly not only tactically brilliant, but also a maniac on the front, chasing down fleeing enemies with wild abandon, and that of course inspired his troops and earned him the kind of loyalty most leaders can only dream of; but he also died at 30, most likely from exhaustion due to his endless campaigns, and what happened to his empire then? Alexander may have been "Dionysus incarnate", as Nietzsche called him, but as a strategist he wasn't much, from where I am standing. Dionysus, it seems, still needs Apollo to handle strategy for him, and doesn't seem to make for a good king, let alone leader of a sprawling empire of the kind Alexander was building one giant bloodsoaked battle after another.
   And all this in ancient times, when battles and wars were immeasurably simpler than they are today, and the idea that any random grunt could do the job of a five-star general is pure comedy worthy of an SNL skit. The commoners who demand that generals fight on the frontlines have not the faintest clue of the type of complexity that modern warfare entails, and the kind of intellect, lengthy study and experience that are required to not get all your subordinates killed in it, let alone emerge victorious from it. And this without even mentioning the geopolitical game that politicians are supposed to be trained at (though of course they never are) and of which the generals know nothing.
   Now it is natural for the common soldier bleeding out in the front to resent his superiors sitting "safe" back at headquarters, but one must set aside resentment at some point and calmly ask what would be attained if we brought those superiors to the front to bleed out with you? Hitler made ONE grave strategy error, by attacking the Soviet Union with whom up to then he was allied, and almost every building in Germany was demolished as a result, and the country was split in two for generations. AND he ended up blowing his brains out in the end. So judgement comes for the leaders too, eventually (Caesar murdered, Napoleon dying out in prison, and so on); does it really matter if it comes somewhat later than for the frontline grunts? We're all gonna die eventually, buddy, but if we have a smart leader and protect him properly, we might achieve more than if we behave like barbarians who refuse orders and mindlessly charge straight ahead in every battle—and end up slaves as a result, with all our traditions and freedoms destroyed.
   Bottom line is that as the scale and scope of warfare increase, the opponents' center of gravity moves further and further back from the front for purely practical, logical reasons, and no amount of grunt resentment or mothers crying and demanding that the leaders' children be sacrificed too can or should change this simple law of physics. Grunts and mothers, however, have not the faintest idea of physics, because they lack the intelligence for it, and hence we get the crying and resentment that we get. Which is why we should ignore it, and even punish it when we encounter it in especially acute form, as the military still does to the insubordinate, thank god, and as the men of the household should be doing to the crying, incoherent and illogical women, if they were still men, which alas they are not, unless, as aforesaid, in a military context, or to a lesser extent in a law enforcement one, where some measure of masculinity still survives, however small, amen.

991. Have you heard of the theory that science and technology "are slowing down", and perhaps even regressing? It's the latest subhuman brain fart, with never any facts let alone numbers to back up any of it, always pushed by some unscientific buffoon who thinks "We should have had flying cars by now!" It's always about those damn flying cars, because they saw them in some movie. But what is a "flying car", dear unscientific buffoons? "It is a car that flies!", they reply, "and it will be amazing!" Okay, I get you want a car that flies, but how about a plane that drives? Would that satisfy you? Because I don't know if you've noticed, but ALL planes "drive": they all have wheels: that's how they land on airstrips! And with the smaller of them you could drive them in the street if you want, so we already have "flying cars" and have had them since the beginning of aviation! "But no, I want MY CAR to fly! That's what a flying car is!" Do you get how retarded these people are? They are not even worth talking to; when you hear such rubbish you know you're talking to a buffoon who shouldn't be opining on anything, let alone on science and technology. More broadly, there is no known way to track and compare the rate of science and technology advance because real life is not like Sid Meier's Civilization where every discovery has a set number of "science beakers" that must be accummulated before it is "unlocked". That's how those people view reality, like a videogame from the '90s! Real science and technology, however, work NOTHING LIKE THAT! Discoveries and advances are essentially incomparable, certainly across disciplines but often even within them (what's more valuable, high-speed internet or wireless internet?), and progress is utterly non-linear and unpredictable. Moore's Law is or was an exception to this, and that's why everyone's heard of it, because it's so unusual for such a law to exist! And, apparently, it's over now, but just over the horizon we have quantum computing that promises to blow it out of the water. So what difference does it make if this type of computing takes a year to arrive, or ten, or even a hundred? It took TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS to develop WRITING! And many cultures on earth NEVER EVEN MANAGED IT! What the fuck difference do a few years more or less matter when we're talking about stuff like quantum computing? Are y'all for real retarded? There is not and probably never will be ANY WAY TO MEASURE AND COMPARE THIS STUFF and it's BEYOND RETARDED to prophesy THE END OF CIVILIZATION because your fucking broadband hasn't got faster in the last six months! Get a life you fucking losers! Crack open some textbooks and get inside a lab to see how this stuff works, it DOESN'T work like ordering takeout! It DOESN'T work to order at all, it's creativity and it comes, or fails to arrive, at its own schedule, which even God in his infinite wisdom doesn't know.

990. Jews are the scapegoats for all the deficiencies of low-IQ whites just as whites are the scapegoats for all the deficiencies of low-IQ non-whites. Let me explain how that works.
   Why do we observe Jews at the forefront of many cutting-edge industries? (for example the media/arts and financial industries are indeed rife with them). The low-IQ answer is, of course, a simplistic conspiracy theory: Jews form an evil cabal that created all these industries from scratch to "destroy culture" (or at least what low-IQ people think is culture, i.e. some previous, obsolete state of culture, i.e. older, lower culture, i.e. non-culture). And, to be sure, there is a lot of decadence in these industries. But, in an advanced civilization, there is a lot of decadence everywhere anyway! It's an essential prerequisite even! So it makes perfect sense that the most capable people in such a civilization will also be the most decadent! The stereotype of the degenerate cocaine-sniffing whoremonging or homosexual Hollywood or Wall Street operative belongs here. Well, buddy, if YOU were subjected to the stresses and temptations of the Hollywood or Wall Street lifestyles, maybe you'd be a "degenerate" too! But you lack the IQ for that, so of course you'll reduce the whole enterprise to a simplistic resentful fairy tale that seems laughable even to children: a bunch of old bearded Jews gathered round a large table planning the destruction of civilization! Well I say enough with this childish nonsense! The Jews are simply some of the smartest and most industrious people around, ergo it makes sense that they'll be encountered at or near all the peaks of the dominant culture, being overrepresented everywhere in it, including therefore in its failings and excesses! This is what it means to be the best! It doesn't mean that you are faultless little angels who can do no wrong, you brainless corn-fed nitwits! There's a moving passage somewhere in Nietzsche where he relates that Europe owes the Jews for the highest sage (Spinoza), and the highest saint (Jesus), and he'd never even heard of Freud or Einstein! In view of all the immeasurable gifts the Jewish spirit has lavished on humanity, anti-semitism in the coming world order will be a capital offense, if I have anything to say on the matter. The slightest word against the Jews, and you're a marked man: I would have not only you, but your entire extended family wiped out, just to be sure. You think you know what the Devil is, but he's just the lackey taking my orders. Entire cities razed to the ground (including the entire Middle East), simply because one person there said something bad about "the Jews", that's how I would have the future! Enough with this stupid meme! To hell with all of you brainless subhumans! You've wasted enough of our nervous energy on this stupid shit! And the same goes to low-IQ non-whites who blame all their troubles on whites! And it's all true: Jews and whites upped the stakes for everybody by bringing into the world a whole torrent of new possibilities which your IQ is too low to handle! So whatcha gonna do about it? Are you all bark, or are you prepared to bite? Come on, let's see what you can do! Any of you fucking pricks bark, and we'll execute every motherfucking last one of you!

989. I think there's three gutters but whatever, I added a fourth for dramatic effect. First Baudrillard struggles to understand Nietzsche, and becomes depressed by it, then the Wachowskis misunderstand Baudrillard and debase his ideas to The Matrix's simplistic plot, and finally Moldbug applies The Matrix's simplistic plot to contemporary society in order "to understand" it.

988. Moldbug and the red pill via Baudrillard and The Matrix. The Wachowskis thought that Baudrillard was talking about a fundamental difference between reality and virtuality while his whole point was that in an advanced state of culture they blend together as to become indistinguishable (more real than the real was his metaphor for this). This insight was debased by the artists to the simplistic real-fake opposition and the red-blue pill metaphor. Easier to understand like all binary oppositions, like black and white, 1s and 0s, good and evil. The real "red pill" meanwhile—i.e. the real genius-level insight, which Baudrillard grappled with (mostly unsuccessfully) his whole life long—is that the left is ultimately correct on everything they say and that everything they say makes perfect sense from their own point of view. To grasp their point of view, however, requires genius of interpretation, if you are not one of them (and if you're one of them it's impossible because they are idiots and hence utterly lack the capacity for self-reflection, just like animals do), so it's much easier to label them as "blue pill" and "fake", and it's no wonder why the Anglo child-intellectuals chose this option, and to this day ignore any higher view that smacks the slightest of European genius! The Anglos take the discarded broken toys from the continental Europeans, clean them up as best they can, and set them up on altars and worship them as their supreme ideologies; they assemble their bric-ŕ-brac of petty ideas from the rubbish of continental European thought! Moldbug took his chief idea from A MOVIE, which was already a DEBASEMENT of continental European thought (Baudrillard's simulacra) by a NIHILISTIC continental European philosopher (i.e., ultimately, by a failure) who was himself merely struggling with the ideas of a genius continental philosopher (Nietzsche's perspectivism). And the entire pseudo-intellectual "alt-right" proudly traces its ideology from that! From the gutter of a gutter of a gutter of a gutter!
   And people wonder why I view them as subhuman and call for their extermination.

987. Want yet another demonstration of how brainless subhumans are? Observe them analyzing the future and trying to make predictions of it. Watch how they unfailingly ignore scientific and technological progress, and even denigrate people like me as "unrealistic fantasists" for... trying to take the future into account when accounting for the future. If your 21st-century theory is not rife with science fiction it is horseshit, and you're a subhuman moron who deserves to be exterminated for so much as fancying that you're entitled to an opinion. You're entitled to death for having a low IQ, and that's exactly what our sci-fi killer drones will be sure to give you when the time comes. And the best part is you won't even see it coming because that's how fucken sssssstupid y'all are.

986. Anglo versus Latin America. Why the massive disparity? First off, Hispanics are the lowest Europeans, they have all the worst aspects of the Greeks and Romans, with very little of the best. Second off, and this is I believe a consequence of the first, Hispanics mixed with the locals, the Anglos didn't. If this doesn't explain everything I don't know what would. And there's a LOT to be explained here! The North went to the moon while the South can still barely feed itself! You CAN'T paper over such cosmic disparity with platitudes and waffling! You need a cosmic difference to account for the cosmically disparate outcomes, and I believe it's what I said.

985. Sometimes there are jobs, and sometimes not. But there is ALWAYS work to be done on earth! It is the uncreative unproductive low-IQ person and midwit who looks for a job, the human looks for work, and never ever fails to find it, because he quite literally always creates it!

984. Who besides an enemy of society would use the phrase "social construct" as a slur?

983. RVF complaining that cities destroy men. And they do. Cities means close co-existence, means we need laws and order because otherwise bloodbaths every day in the streets and the city comes to a standstill, meaning police, meaning you are no longer allowed to defend yourself let alone to take revenge, and are obliged to run crying to the police station like a whiny child every time you meet trouble, means over time the population is emasculated to a bunch of faggot rats and snitches. But I have no such problem because I am a superman. This is what it takes to still be a man in an advanced civilization: you must be a superman. It's regular men, who must play by the rules, that are emasculated, so they have a right to whine. After all, that's the only way the police will help them with their troubles! (Whereas I don't need the police, it's the others who need the police to defend themselves from me. At the same time, I am not a pure criminal who creates nothing either: in fact, as a philosopher who creates the mindsets with which lesser creators create their works, I create practically everything; and that, once again, is what it means to be a superman).

982. The most humane genome-cleansing policy: give low-IQ people money in exchange for sterilization. They can have fun the remainder of their lives, and in one generation you are rid of them with no bloodshed.

981. Philosophers have done away with causality for centuries now, but commoners still believe in it. They see us and our writings as "absurd", or at the most "magical", but it's their causality that is magic. So let me try to explain one last time to you low-IQ buffoons why your Richard Dawkins Anglo Cabbage Head logic is dumb as fuck and you are dumb as doorknobs for still believing it in the 21st century. This is the last chance you'll get to grasp this, and if you fail to give this explanation to the roving gangs of murder-drones we'll soon be sending out, you're toast! So pay attention!
   What is the cause of something?
   It's something else.
   But we've already agreed that everything in the universe is connected to and affects everything else, otherwise they wouldn't be part of the same universe.
   So the cause of anything... is everything.
   But "everything" is precisely the definition of universe.
   So the cause of anything is the universe.
   But the universe cannot be pointed to as cause, because... it can't be pointed to.
   The universe is not in your room, or outside your door, or even in the sky.
   So it is magical thinking to believe that some thing caused something else, and that all the other things in the universe had nothing to do with it.
   So causality is magical thinking, which is fantasy, which is a desire, which is will.
   You WANT that thing's cause to be that other thing, and that is all.
   I can "prove" that Muslims created Western civilization if I want.
   But I don't want to.
   So I won't.
   Think also of chaos theory and the butterfly flapping its wings creating a cyclone and so on.
   Think also of the epistemological scepticism of Hume and Kant.
   All these things say the same thing.
   We are not logically entitled to draw inferences from circumstances. Just because something happened doesn't mean it will happen again. Indeed, it's proof positive that it won't happen again before the next Recurrence! How can there be "laws" of "nature" in a universe in which repetition is impossible!
   Moreover, causality would make the universe deterministic.
   If you could find the true cause of one thing you could calculate all other things from that and win the game.
   That's why we are reduced to chances and quantum theory and ultimately Zarathustra's dice-throwers.
   It's not an accident that the ultimate philosopher likes gambling! It's also not an accident that the subhuman hates gambling and regards it as the devil. The subhuman wants to calculate! The subhuman wants the "sure thing"!
   And of course whoever insists on the sure thing doesn't deserve anything. He deserves slavery, and that's why he gets precisely that.

980. "Best debater" AI. Will just push programmers' viewpoints. But helpful in being more interesting than high-IQ peoples' friends. Can be well-read etc. Will make subhumans look like animals. Just as it will make real females. Wouldn't it be cool to have a girlfriend who cares about something other than herself—or at least pretends to really well? (that's all that a man can ask for, after all no one wants a girlfriend who is smarter than them, other than faggots). Will render females obsolete, together with axolotl tanks. That's 95% of "mankind" rendered obsolete. All the drone army will do is take out the trash.

979. At this point you might say, "If you side with the underdog by definition, why are you championing Western culture, and so on, which is a juggernaut on earth compared to other cultures?" You answered your own question when you said "on earth". Western culture may be a juggernaut right here, but is most likely an underdog in the galaxy, let alone in the universe, and therefore needs all the help it can get from us unless you intend to have African bushmen or Indian spearmen fight the aliens when the time comes. We need to strip mine the planet and lay down nanomachine factories from pole to pole, or else the earth is done. If you don't understand how this works, play the videogame Planetary Annihilation. That is mankind's future, not the left's low-IQ subhumans holding hands while singing kumbaya, nor the right's return to some past era that has already occurred and ended because we had enough of it thankyouverymuch. The future is STAR WARS. The future is PLANETS BEING ANNIHILATED because, as movies, novels and videogames show us, that is IMMENSE AMOUNTS OF FUN, and that's why science fiction is mankind's perennial favorite fiction genre (eight of the top ten highest grossing movies of all time are sci-fi). When the top ten grossing movies are about faggots holding hands while crying I will concede that mankind's done, but for the time being all signs still look extremely positive, so I'll keep fighting.

978. Why consensus necessarily leads to error, regardless of the field and subject. Because the world is "a war of all against all" (Hobbes). Therefore, all alliances are by definition temporary and will eventually be broken by the ultimate winner (God). Morevoer, the bigger the alliance the more "wrong" it will be since "wrongness" is defined subjectively by everyone as whatever stands against them. The winner cannot be an alliance, it must be an individual (all the way down to the subatomic level, since the Big Bang = God is the smallest thing that can exist), hence a massive alliance standing against this individual will be "more wrong" (i.e. a bigger threat) than a smaller one. This makes sense even from a dramatic standpoint, otherwise the universe would be a boring place where the biggest alliance would steamroll everyone and conflict (and therefore life, flux, etc.) would ultimately cease. Instead we have a miraculous and miraculously interesting universe where underdogs are destined to win by definition (with God being the biggest underdog of all, believe it or not, which is why he'll end up the biggest winner: he does manage to turn himself from a hydrogen atom to an Overman and finally a Big Bang, after all).

977. Difference between IQ and intelligence. IQ is not intelligence any more than a strong engine is a fast car. You can put the strongest engine in the world inside a fridge and it won't go anywhere. A high IQ is like a good tool; no matter how good it may be, it can only be put to the use that its owner desires. Weak men or women will use their IQ in petty stupid shit no matter how high it may be. They'll spend all its horsepower on inventing rationalizations for their fears and failures and neuroses than on actually inventing anything. That's why balls are inextricable from intelligence. That's why the history of philosophy is a history of the thoughts of straight white males (with a brief East Asian interlude back when East Asians still had a decent amount of balls).

976. It is precisely the most powerful things that are abused the most. Live streaming, social media, the internet: these are very powerful things. You either figure out how to use them, or they end up using you. Most people can't figure them out. And even abstaining entirely from using them is a form of failure to figure out how to use them, otherwise a hermit in a cabin in the woods would be the coolest human being ever. If you set up your social accounts right, there are no negative aspects to them at all. They are harmless little apps that facilitate communication on whatever terms you choose to impose on this communication. That is all. All that running around like a headless chicken screaming that Facebook is abusing you does is show to everyone... that you're a headless little chicken who can't figure out how to use a harmless little app for fuck's sake. Jesus Christ grow up.

975. "But IQ has nothing to do with the opinions and worldviews someone chooses to adopt! I am sure we can get even low-IQ people to convert to atheism and science-worship at some point!"
   Sure buddy. And after you've done that maybe you can convert monkeys too.

974. Thales was the first person in the world to discard divine anthropomorphization (the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, such as loves and hatreds, a beard or a penis), and was therefore the father of advanced abstraction, which is to say of modern thought. Instead of saying, "Zeus moved the clouds", he said "The wind moved the clouds!", and thereby launched a brand-new field of human endeavor called "science"! So next time some practically illiterate subhuman asks "What has philosophy ever accomplished?", a good reply would be "Uhhh, I don't know, maybe created science?", and seen aright all of the greatest scientific breakthroughs were either made by philosophers themselves or at least predicted and foreshadowed by them far in advance of the actual discoveries. In either case, the philosophers have been the only ones to properly grapple with the issue of the interpretation of these discoveries, i.e. how they fit in the context of all the rest of them, as a complete system of thought, as a philosophy; while scientists' attempts in this endeavor (which is essentially the pinnacle of thought) have always been at best mediocre, mostly pathetic, most recently seen with their decades-long complete failure to make heads or tails of quantum theory (with their most dominant interpretation, the Copenhagen one, being little more than a cope and dodging of the issue).
   Meanwhile, it's worth noting that the vast majority of world population still identifies as believing in some anthropomorphized god, i.e. they have still not caught up with Thales and his revolution in thinking from 2,500 years ago, and this is what it means to be retarded. Declared atheists remain a tiny percentage of world population, and what a surprise, they are overwhelmingly clustered in high-IQ countries in Europe (mostly the north) and East Asia (the US doesn't even figure in the top 20). When Europe was at its weakest, meanwhile, during the Dark Ages produced by the Christian disease, science came to a standstill, and a little later the Muslims arrived at the gates of Vienna and threatened to wipe civilization off the face of the earth. Only the mightiest expenditure of European blood prevented that eventuality, and that's why you can read these words now on your digital computer screen in the comfort of your heated or air-conditioned home instead of living in a cave or a tent as a cowering slave to an inbred low-IQ Arab. Afterwards science thankfully recovered, with technology following suit, and that's why civilization is no longer in danger of being destroyed from low-IQ subhumanity no matter how many hours a day they spend praying that it will be. And seen aright, all religious people are praying that civilization be destroyed, and in low-IQ countries their neverending stream of invective against civilization rises up from their wretched temples and fills the air like a thick smog, choking the breath out of any thinking people that happen to pass by, and chasing them out of the area, creating entire regions of the planet that are essentially uninhabited and uninhabitable by human beings!
   And this is where genocide comes in.

973. Do you understand now how lifeforms and groups of lifeforms create disorders and diseases? First, they define a direction, the direction they want to head towards as a group. Then, they judge everything around them, and above all inside them, according to whether it aids or hinders them towards the attainment of this goal. And finally, they brand anything that hinders them as simply "bad" or "evil" at first, and later—once they become scientific—as "diseases" and "disorders", erecting entire fields of study and schools of research to combat them. However, since the universe is a zero-sum game, and all lifeforms and groups of lifeforms are ultimately moving head-on towards each other in a bellum omnium contra omnes that can only end in a Big Crunch, their values of what is good and bad, helpful and harmful, healthful and sick, will ultimately be diametrically opposed and you can be sure that the trash you throw out of your house, and which would otherwise cause you to grow sick and die, are for some other lifeform and group of lifeforms somewhere life-giving nectar and ambrosia from the gods. So while for you, cancer is a tragic disease that must be combatted at all costs, for cancer itself its propagation is procreation and the miracle of life, and we all know that flies know no greater delicacy than human feces. Do you get the value of relativity theory now, and the gross imbecility in fancying that your personal values and whims, and those of whatever little group you belong to, are or should be universal? You must fight to MAKE them universal, to be sure, and in the course of doing that smash anything that stands in your way—or at least attempt to smash it—since that is the whole point of the game, which you are playing constantly even if you don't realize it! But realizing all these things helps you become a better player, and though you'll never win this game because "no player can be greater than the game itself" (Rollerball), you do want to play the game as much as possible, right? You do want to become the best player that you can be?
   Then understand relativity theory, moron. Because that's the only way to understand your enemies, and you do understand that understanding your enemies can be quite helpful in a little thing an old wise man once called the Art of War? "But there are no enemies, we're all friends", meanwhile, is precisely what your worst enemy wants you to believe, the enemy who's trying to pass off as your friend. And that too, relativity theory can help you understand.

972. Embrace relativity fully. You can swim in the flux. You don't need anything solid to stand on. If you abandon the ground, you can fly, and at last leave the earth, and reach for the stars.

971. You think you know that you'd feel bad if you got shot in the face, and that is an indisputable fact to you, and you'd expect at the very least all other humans to feel the same way too, under the same circumstances. But remember back to not so long ago during ancient sacrifices where people would consider it an honor to die for the sake of the tribe. Or commit seppuku. Or throw their lives away at a duel over a mere insult. All because in those times those behaviors and feelings were considered "right".
   We don't even need to bring in the aliens to prove that it's possible to desire to be shot in the face lol, and to even consider it a distinction and rare honor, and to derive pleasure from it the likes of which no joyless contemporary bugman could ever fathom. But the exaggeration helps as it magnifies the issues and makes them easier to see even for those who "suffer" from poor eyesight, or who perhaps prefer their vision to be poor so they won't have to face hard realities they'd rather not see, and be forced to deal with. Philosophy forces those people to deal with those hard realities, or else fails them and ejects them from the class for good.

970. As for physical injuries and disease, I am sure you'd feel bad if you got shot in the face, but how would an alien feel? Depends on the alien, no? So in his society, a gunshot to the face might be called "tickling", and be considered quite a fun, pleasant thing, and certainly far from a grievous wound that would require emergency visits to the hospital and surgeons and doctors that have devoted their entire lives to studying how to treat this stuff. Every condition is ultimately a highly personal, highly relative thing, and it's absurdly narrow-minded to insist that your personal experience and interpretation of it is an "objective fact" that "every lifeform in the universe" should have to approach and treat the exact same way you or your favorite society approach it and treat it.
   But that's precisely what subhumans do, and what they demand that all the rest of us do too.
   Don't do it.
   You are better than them. You can do better than that.

969. So let's explain, in some detail, why mental illness is indeed a social construct, just like all types of injury and disease (which yes, includes cancer and gunshots to the face too). For I hear you think that I am right-wing, so I would like to make an effort to explain to you that this assertion couldn't be further from the truth and that, from the towering heights of the next stage in superhuman evolution on which I stand, both conservatives and liberals seem like merely different types of subhumans when all is said and done.
   So let's talk about mental disorder and disease. I have an IQ of 139, and anyone with double-digit IQ is mentally retarded as far as I am concerned. Or where do you place the line for mental retardation on the IQ scale? Makes no difference in the end; the mere fact that we place the line at different levels proves that the line is an arbitrary convention entirely depended on the subjective views of the person, or the society, that determines it, no different to the "poverty line" that can be, and often is, conveniently moved to "prove" any narrative that someone wants to prove. Want to make everyone with less money than Jeff Bezos poor? Just place the line right under Bezos's personal wealth, and voila: suddenly everyone else has become "poor". And it's the same with every imaginable condition in the universe, believe it or not—and all of them are merely imaginable and thus imaginary, at the end of the day, if you look into them and analyze them deeply enough. Everything is relative indeed, and no one understood relativity like Nietzsche did any more than they understood quantum theory (and he understood both decades before the scientists ran up to them in the lab; before they had even invented the words to express these ideas and flailingly, hopelessly discuss them among theselves).
   "But mental illness is an entirely separate thing from low IQ!!!", the pedants will now protest. But is it really? When Socrates and Kant go off on barely coherent endless rants about their "inner demons" or "categorical imperatives" that command them to "be good", what difference is there between them and the schizophrenic who makes up a voice in his head and then insists that its commands are coming from someone other than himself? Even worse, these philosophical schizophrenics do not remain merely content with playing this charade with themselves but demand that ALL the rest of us obey the voices in their heads too, or worse still that WE TOO have these voices in our own heads, MUST all have these voices in us, simply because we are all "human" and that's "how humans are" lol. And that's what I call subhuman, and deem that it's a mental disorder and disease. So we arrive at relativity once again, with each side screaming invenctive at the other and threatening to lock them up in mental institutions, or worse.
   Bottom line is that if everyone was schizophrenic we wouldn't even have heard of the word. Schizophrenia simply cannot exist in a society of schizophrenics, and I have no doubt whatsoever that according to aliens that we'll eventually meet we suffer from all sorts of disorders and diseases it would never have even occurred to us that they exist. Hell, many of the qualities we downright pride ourselves on will doubtless seem like illnesses to a race of stronger beings. And isn't this already the case between e.g. philosophers and the average man, who thinks that morality is something other than a mere collection of personal whims? Doesn't that person, and all his equally average doctors who proclaim him 100% mentally sound, seem like mentally retarded to philosophers and philosophical students like us?
   Nor do the right-wing fanatics fare much better under this light. You think there's any difference to me between the libtard screaming in my face about his "equality" or the libertardian endlessly scribbling screeds about "natural laws" and "true justice" and "unclaimed resources", and other such pitiful, pathetic contradictions in terms? It's the same sort of mental disease, from where I am standing, and they'll all end up in the same camps and chambers by the time my descendants and I are in charge. Maybe a zoo, if we're feeling especially charitable that day, in separate cages with engraved plaques explaining in detail their particular version of their common mental disease (which, in our superhuman society, will be called "weakness of the will" plain and simple, and be considered incurable).
   Want to be treated like a human being instead, in the coming order of things? Stop making shit up like a schizophrenic then (and especially shit that clouds your neighbor's judgement and tricks him into treating you far more leniently than you deserve). Be honest. Be brave. Be strong.
   Be a man.

968. In the end, if it came to a choice between allying with religious nuts and Jew-bashers, or letting civilization go up in flames, I'd add wood to the fire and burn the whole thing down myself. Let civilization die if the only alternative is going back to the unthinking past. The alt-retards are entirely consumed by religious psychosis and anti-Jewish hysteria, and though I love their civil war plans—since I love war of all kinds, and I'd fight it even for no reason—I'd rather fight them first before turning my attention to their enemies. Hopefully that's where the Iron Man suits will come in. With a few of those, Thiel, Musk and a few of their friends and me could probably turn a few billion subhumans to ashes in a few days. It's either that or the drone army. Or we might have to use both if the subhuman apocalypse turns out to have been too big. Drones or a squad of Iron Men? Or perhaps the Matrix "fry their brains" plan I proposed before? Or more old-school methods like poison in the water supply? How will we solve the Subhuman Question [[[SQ]]], my dear human and superhuman friends? This is the issue that neither the left nor the right are discussing, naturally enough since [[[they]]] are its subject. But that's precisely the issue that will dominate the present century once this book is done and philosophy has ended. As usual, the left and the right are discussing everything except the only thing that ultimately matters: how we'll get rid of them so we can usher in the new era of superhuman supremacy.

967. Yes birth rates are collapsing because manginas made the culture pozzed and can't control their women long enough to put babies in them, but that's not the only reason, and it may not even be the biggest one. The biggest one, I believe, is that in an advanced civilization like ours there's simply TOO MUCH SHIT GOING ON. You can get lost in any given science or art or sport for decades without seeing the end of it, and there are countless of those pursuits everywhere around you, as far as the eye can see. But what do they have in some third-world village? Beyond the daily rote work of carrying water from the well or whatever the fuck, there's nothing. They have no science, no art, not even any sports and games really—certainly nothing anywhere near as complex as ours. Nothing to look forward to as they grow older beyond the same old base survival shit; no future. In such an environment, churning out kids endlessly makes sense, and we'd be doing it too if we were in their shoes. What could be better than a bunch of children if you're living in the dirt and have no means? They can help around with the daily mind-numbing menial tasks, they can take care of you as you age, they are even the sole means you have of expanding your property and influence and, when push comes to shove, they are ready-made allies in a fight—which is especially useful where law and order are lacking. And they cost nothing in the bargain, since there is no education to give them or fine food and clothes and expensive experiences like foreign travel to provide them. Under these circumstances, it makes perfect sense to churn out as many children as you can, as there are literally no downsides to it and an endless array of advantages.
   Now compare all this with Western circumstances, and especially with the realities of high-flying overachieving Westerners like me, who have the lowest birth rates (double-digit IQ rednecks are way more fecund). What part of my daily work could a child help with? Do you see me going to a well to carry water? Do you see me digging ditches? And can a child help me with my philosophical or scientific studies? It can't even play a videogame with me for at least 10 to 15 years! He'd need a couple of decades of non-stop hyper-expensive education and daily attention from me at the minimum to help with the kind of work I do—and even then his help would in all likelihood be small to zero unless he's as much of a genius as I am, which is statistically unlikely. And I sure as hell don't need kids to stave off boredom like the third-worlders do since I have so many interests my schedule is full all the way to the grave. I would have to remove some things from my life to make room for kids, while the third-worlders are filling empty space in their lives with them. I would have to give the world to my kids to raise them to the level where they could be useful to me, and even then they'd probably be of very little use to me, while the third-worlders give their kids nothing and receive a never-ending stream of advantages in return. That's why they have way more children than we do, and not because they lack condoms or are too stupid to pull out before they come inside their wives.
   And to top it all off, the third-worlders have intact families to raise and control their kids, while in the West we are expected to do it on our own, in single-parent households, because hordes of effeminate males let women loose to the point where we can't even keep them in the home no more, let alone get them to stay there all day and perform their natural and traditional duties! We'd still have lower birthrates than third-worlders if the feminized males could manage their women, but at least we wouldn't be facing extinction! Those manginas doomed us all.
   And yet, there may still be hope. For if science and technology created the problem (not only the existence of all these activities to pour our lives into, but also the manginas' feminization...), maybe they can provide the solution too, in the form of artificial procreation and incubation, plus mechanized child-rearing and education in the form of anthropomorphic robotic tutors and so on, with little human input and supervision. For if the day came when I could simply mail-order 10,000 fully-grown copies of myself... look out world, for the end is nigh.

966. Nietzsche: "The poison from which weaker natures perish strengthens the strong. Nor do they call it poison."

965. Relationship between forum posts and aphorisms. It's while fighting forum battles across the internet for years in the mid-2000s that I honed my aphoristic skills before I even quite knew what the word means. My mere appearance on a scene would start riots. Everywhere I went I sparked outrage with my opinions and whole forums would rise up to get me banned, and I would have but a few sentences in a post box with which to make my case and push back against my attackers. Day after day, year after year, for close to half a decade. And there were days when I'd be refreshing a forum 50 times and posting almost as much. Any self-improvement guru will tell you that's a massive waste of your time—but I became a literary giant out of it, and had a blast to boot. When I heard people say that that level of posting is obsessive and is ruining my life, I felt "Whatever dude, I am enjoying the hell out of it so imma keep doing it". To be sure, I have no doubt that, for subhumans, who have no hope in hell of becoming literary giants, or anything else that's great, obsessive forum-posting is a bad idea, just like obsessive game-playing or obsessive masturbation, or obsessive anything really. But do I look subhuman to you, punk? So keep your self-improvement rubbish to yourself, because for my kind what you call "improvement" would be destruction.

964. How does an Overman's thinking differ from a common person's? Radically. But that's the wrong way to conceptualize the issue. It is the Overman's being that's radically different, and therefore, his thinking is too.
   A striking example of this, so you can get a grasp of the magnitudes involved, is the whole contemporary dating debacle. The faggotcube is unanimous here: things look grim. And seen from most angles, that's true. However, I still maintain that—for me at least—this is the best time in the world to be dating, and even, when the time comes, to start a family and bring offspring into the world, if I end up going that far.
   Take my dating history as a starting point. I have had more affairs than I can remember, but I have dated seriously maybe six-seven girls so far, for anywhere between a couple of months to several years. All these girls I dumped when I eventually grew sick of them. In casual conversation I may say, with polite self-deprecation, that some of them left me, but the truth, when I introspect about what happened in complete honesty, is that I left them all. I may have changed my mind later, second-guessing myself temporarily, as I nearly always do lol when it comes to my relationships with people—because I value them enough to give them a second chance, and oftentimes even a third and fourth—and in some of the cases the girls might have refused to take me back, but the fact of the matter is that in every single case I am the one who initiated the break simply because the girls were not good enough. Their personalities and behaviors were in the end unacceptable, and when I got fed up with them I dumped all of them on their ass.
   This is where the faggotcube peeps come in to tell me that, in a traditional society, those girls' personalities would not have been corrupted by modern degeneracy, and their behaviors would have been constrained to present a far more amiable character to me that I would have gladly wifed up and loved all the way to the grave.
   And you know what? It's all true. I have no doubt at all that every single of my past girlfriends would have made at the very least a decent wife for me and mother for my children in earlier centuries. They were all beautiful, for one, and they were gifted in many other ways too, otherwise I would never have loved them and kept them around for so long. So up to this point the Overman and the best of the PUA crowd are in agreement.
   But past that point we radically diverge. Because it is precisely due to modern degeneracy that I now have the opportunity to find a girl who doesn't require harsh social conditions and conventions to be a decent person. In olden times I would have lived my whole life next to a latent uncaring slut, and would never have known the difference! Why on earth would anyone want that? On the other hand, a girl who, in the midst of complete social disintegration, can hold her own and go against the flow... that's the ultimate prize in the dating pool, my friends, and if it comes at the end of a long and turbulent dating life, so much the better I say! It will merely be that much sweeter and precious for all that.
   The PUAs of course will say now that AWALT, but that's not true. What's true is that women in general are shitty people because they are weaklings, and all weaklings are shitty, but of course some are shittier than others, as with all things, and it's precisely the less shitty among them that we call "decent people". And it is precisely modern degeneracy that's helping me to find the most decent one that I can.
   Of course the PUAs and their acolytes are really bad at meeting and attracting new girls, and even worse at developing relationships with them, so this realization doesn't help them at all, and that's why they see nothing but grimness here and diminishing prospects. And, for them, that's indeed how things are, so they are justified in their constant complaining and bad mood. And I am not saying this situation is good for society at all, since if I ran things the dating culture would be extinguished and we'd go back to arranged marriages asap, precisely in order to help incompetent losers like the PUAs and, let's face it, the vast majority of modern men, so that they wouldn't have to spend so much time on dealing with their women—or their lack of them—and would have more energy to put into their work and families and other important stuff. So things are definitely grim from the perspective of society and the future, and we must strive with all our might to improve them in every way that we can.
   But none of this changes the fact that, for me personally, this is the best time in the world to exist in all respects, including dating. With my unmatched personal qualities and pick-up skills I have access to more women, and from a wider variety of backgrounds, than I would have at any other time in the past—or in the future, for that matter, since technology is about to shut down sexual procreation and with it dating and all that goes with it. And then societal decay gives me an extremely complex situation on which to use my vast analytical skills, and one more cause to fight for, among many others, so that I am never bored. I am indeed surrounded by challenges, but I am up to, and up for, all of them, from the most physical all the way up to the most spiritual. What's not to like lol?
   My superior talents and skills in every area of life routinely turn everyone else's complete disasters into opportunities. Is it any wonder that my thinking is so radically different from theirs?

963. If I was a homeless person, I'd at least become a ripped "cabin in the woods"-type character. Hunt animals, forage roots, bathe in rivers and sleep under the stars in a hotel for acres, all mine. I'd read some books and learn how to do all this stuff better than our pioneer ancestors who invented them. Homeless people are retarded. That's why they are homeless; no other reason. It's so easy to not be homeless that even Neanderthals managed it, even animals.

962. "Projection" is as stupid as an argument, at least as it is generally employed, as "reduction" or "ad hominem", because:

   1. All arguments are ultimately "ad hominem", i.e. "to the person", because arguments are created BY PEOPLE, not by unfeeling machines, as the autistic Anglos think, ergo bad arguments are ultimately created by bad people, and the badness in the argument will ultimately lead you to the badness in the person, if you follow it all the way through to its source (which is difficult to do, which is why the Anglos give up way before they get there).

   2. I've already explained why there's nothing wrong with reduction. The universe's variety is endless, and the only way to tame it to something intelligible that we can use is by REDUCING phenomena to something simpler than infinite multipicity, and the greater the reduction the greater the usefulness of the utterance, all the way up to razor-sharp maxims such as "Life is will to power" that are infinitely useful because they can explain everything. Ergo "reduction" is for geniuses, and its denigration belongs precisely to the unthinking.

And finally,

   3. Arguments such as "You're just projecting, dude" have their uses when a small person is projecting his thought process and patterns of behavior onto a greater one, because such projection will necessarily be stupid, revealing nothing about the greater person but only about the smaller one, but that doesn't mean that projection in itself is bad and must be denigrated wherever it is found! We're all "projecting" ultimately, since we have nothing by which to measure and understand the world beyond what is inside us! The reason I can understand more than anyone else is because I HAVE FAR MORE INSIDE ME THAN ANYONE ELSE, and hence my projections of everyone and everything are far more accurate! That is all! A man can understand a dog just fine by projecting into him, but can a dog understand a man? Wake up, humans, and stop believing that subhumans are like you just because they walk like ducks and quack like ducks—or that will be the end of you, and of your entire civilization.

961. Typical faggotcube opinion, lifted verbatim off some forum: "Growing up without a father present stunts you in ways that you discover when pushed off the deep end. Teaching yourself to be a man is hard when one has only grown up around women; with no masculine model to base yourself on, you grope blindly in the darkness for a figure of strength."
   If you have to "teach yourself to be a man", trust me dude, you are a woman. I grew up with a father present all the time, but never did anything with him because he was a boring person. The idea of spending time with dad, the way the faggotcube crybabies want to, would have been laughable to me. Dad didn't play sports. Dad didn't play videogames or collect comics or run D&D sessions. He didn't go on cool adventures trespassing on people's properties and shooting them with BB guns, or shoplift merchandise worth fortunes, or, or, or. So why the fuck would I want to hang out with him? If your dad does those things, more power to you, but mine didn't, so I basically never hanged out with him by choice, and I still turned out orders of magnitude more masculine than anyone in the faggotcube, whether they had fathers or not. So wtf difference does a present father make? I mean in terms of masculinity—obviously in terms of resources etc. it makes a massive difference. But masculinity is GENETICALLY DETERMINED, FAGFACES! and all you're doing with your incessant grasping about to blame your lack of masculinity on someone is loudly advertise that you have no hope, or clue of it. Blacks grow up without fathers and are running around hypermasculinely murdering everyone who gives them a wrong look while you cry about growing up a fag because you lacked a father! A masculine father would have disowned you for being too effeminate to be worth raising, even if he was present, so you should be thankful for his absence since it saved you the embarassment and shame!

960. "Natural law." The legal bugmen still scribble whole books about it. But the whole point of laws is that they are artificial! It's in the definition of the concept! O subhumans. The capacity for the contradictio in adjecto is so strong within you. Not to mention your capacity for stupidity, which is the reason every other word out of your mouths is nonsense.

959. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE ARE NO HIGHLY MASCULINE ASIANS OR HIGHLY INTELLIGENT BLACKS (or, for that matter, stupid, cowardly whites), and you may well be among them, but that has nothing to do with what I am saying. LEARN HOW STATISTICS WORK, FUCKWITS!

958. World history under the perspective of my balls/brain theory. Yes, it's waycist af, but hear me out. It is well known that black people have the largest penis sizes. It is also well known that East Asians have the smallest. And if we assume that penis size correlates with ball size, which correlates with testosterone production, you see where I am going with this. So my thesis is this: East Asians have the highest IQs in the world, but the smallest ball size, ergo they lack the masculine drive to actually embark on ambitious projects like conquering the world, or even merely exploring it. So though they had the brains for advanced civilization and colonization/world conquest, they lacked the balls, so they never went for them, being content to stay in their little corner of the world and fight half-assed parochial wars between them. Black people, on the other hand, had loads of T but not enough brain power to do anything advanced with it. After all, lions have lots of T too, but it never occurred to them to raise armies or study anything. Bottom line is that only white people seemed to cross the required threshold of both sufficient brain- and ball size, ergo the history of the species up to this point. Where we go from here is debatable, but the basic facts of our journey up to here seem, to me at least, a closed case. And it's waycist as fuck because biology and the universe are waycist as fuck. And don't make me remind you again what race invented biology.

957. With all the talk about white supremacism over the past few decades people forget that a few centuries ago there was no such thing. As recently as 150 years ago Irish immigrants to the US were referred to as "black" and various white groups were slaughtering each other in the streets of New York with as much relish as real blacks and Latinos are killing each other in Los Angeles now. The reason that white identity exists at all is the discovery of non-whites, while it is plain that without this discovery European nations would still be antagonizing each other and the concept of whiteness would not have been invented at all. In a very real sense, white supremacy owes its very existence to all the races it views as beneath it. Quite ironic, if you think about it, but that's how the yin-yang works. And similar examples are everywhere in world history you care to look. The Greeks only came together whenever the Persians would pay them a visit, while the rest of the time they were quite content to tear each other apart. After all, without a common adversary, what would have been the point of them coming together at all? There would have been no point, and that's why in over a thousand years of history this absurd scenario never materialized. So now we can see what it would take to achieve the liberals' utopia of "world peace" (meaning planetary peace): it would take nothing less than aliens, and a war of such scale and viciousness it would make our "world wars" seem like pillow fights (the 2005 War of the Worlds remake is the most realistic depiction I have seen of how this will probably turn out, at least if the aliens find us before we find them). Absent of aliens the various human factions will be content to keep tearing into each other, quite literally, until the end of time, because a power with nothing to oppose it (which is what "world peace" would be) is not a concept that can be grasped at all but a contradictio in adjecto, on top of being boring, which is of course the greater sin.

956. That civilization feminizes is a phenomenon that has been noted often through the ages, though its precise mechanisms have not yet been described, and we'll be doing this shortly. Until then, however, it's worth answering the question of how the Greeks and the Romans were able to prevail over and subdue the barbarians that surrounded them, if the latter were superior masculine specimens? For the most part, the same way the West subdues contemporary barbarians: with superior weapons, training, strategy and tactics. Mano-a-mano, and without weapons, in a bare-knuckle fight to the death, the barbarians, by and large, would always triumph, with perhaps few exceptions, when facing elite civilized units like Spartans or special forces commandos whose superior training includes unarmed combat. But such combat is only of much relevance in movies, and becomes increasingly irrelevant as the power of civilization advances, so in a large scale accounting its influence is negligible (the West doesn't need special forces to beat the Araboids, we can flatten them at any time with conventional weapons and merely use commandos to avoid excessive collateral damage, purely for PR reasons). The bottom line is that the individual Roman soldier was a weakling compared to the invididual barbarian, but a legion commanded by Caesar was a formidable opponent that the barbarians could never hope to beat with any degree of consistency. And yet... the Greeks and the Romans were eventually overrun by the barbarians... and the Dark Ages followed. Despite their superior military power... in the end they were beaten, because the barbarian hordes just kept coming. Today we like to think that classical civilization won, because we are its descendants, so if we exist, it makes sense to assume that our ancestors won, but it's not that simple. Militarily, our ancestors (by which I mean mine, because I am Greek and you're likely neither Greek nor Italian) lost, fair and square, but culturally, over several centuries, we won, because the northern barbarians (by which I mean most of your ancestors, dear reader) ended up adopting our culture.
   So how did the Greeks and the Romans beat the barbarians in the end?
   They civilized them, in a strange type of victory in which both sides won, leaving behind no losers. So cultural victory seems to be a panacea—exactly what our dear liberals have been preaching ever since the Enlightenment. But, once more, things are not that simple because, for this scheme to work, you need barbarian populations that are capable of civilization! That's why the French and the Germans bear no ill will towards the Greeks and the Romans—indeed, to this day, they idolize them—because they were capable of becoming civilized, and even of raising this civilization to previously unseen heights. So of course there's no reason for resentment there. But ask the American Indians how they feel about American, and generally Western culture. Ask the indigenous South American populations. Ask the Australian Aboriginals or the Maoris in New Zealand. Ask the Araboids running amok in Europe and spitting on everything in sight today. Ask the black South Africans who hate us so much that they are destroying their very own country as I write this, because we built it for them and they can't stand it. Most of Asia is a clusterfuck in this respect, and even in East Asia—the most culturally fertile region of the world outside the West—the people to this day have a love-hate relationship with Western culture.
   So as you can see, cultural warfare is far more complex than the military type, and its literature is vastly less developed, despite this type of warfare being far more important in the long run. So let's continue developing it then. For the ultimate fate of civilization, and of our species as a whole, this could well prove to be a life and death matter.

955. How much freedom should governments give to people? Liberals and conservatives have different theories on this, but of course they are both wrong, their main mistake being their belief in the fictitious concept of "people". There's no such thing as "people", there is an order of rank of lifeforms, and every homo sapiens stands somewhere in that ranking, some of them closer towards the sapiens end of it, and some closer to the homo. Joking aside, it is intelligence which plays the crucial role here (which to some degree correlates with IQ). So if the nation is full of smart individuals, government should stay out of their way as much as possible, and then conservative championing of freedom is indeed the best theory to employ here. But if the nation is full of morons, letting them run free is how you get Rwanda, or the Middle East, or any given Fuckheadistan, which is why progressive liberation agendas have been such a disaster everywhere in the low-IQ world that they've been tried, and repressive regimes have proved superior, with the extreme end of the spectrum in this direction being animals: how much freedom should you give to a chicken? Obviously none lol, or at most as much as it needs to develop healthily into a delicious chicken salad meal. Bottom line is DNA isn't equal, it is in fact the most unequal thing in the known universe (because it is the most complex), and therefore if you attempt to impose simplistic blanket rules on it you'll fail every time, most probably because you yourself are an idiot, or at least poorly informed, which is itself a kind of idiocy and certainly symptomatic of it, especially when the information/insight already exists, as it does now.

954. Probably nothing enrages me more than when turd worlders pretend to castigate the West for its "dysfunction" and "decadence". It's like a caveman making fun of the Wright brothers because one of their planes exploded. Motherfucker we are building FLYING MACHINES, OF COURSE we'll run into problems that you in your disgusting, smelly caves would never even imagine! This insane attitude of savages pretending to be above the West is utterly intolerable and the only proportional response to it is genocide. Kill them all, and let the Great Spaghetti Monster in the sky sort them out.

953. On "the economy" and "opportunities". Prehistoric barely-human cavemen had no economy. The economy was zero before someone decided to kickstart it by exchanging something with someone. From complete zero he singlehandedly created both "the economy"—the entire economy—and his opportunities within it. Now you live in an advanced, absurdly complex economy where there are so many opportunities no single person or group of persons can even fathom them, and you tell me you have no opportunities?
   And that's what I mean by subhuman.

952. Politics may be a dirty word today, but in antiquity that's all that men were concerned with. If you were not into politics back then you weren't a man, you were a child, a woman or a slave. It was understood that the naturally masculine occupation was politics. So how did we get from that to today, where there's hardly a less masculine, more contemptible occupation for a man than politician?
   The crucial moment came when politics was divorced from war and combat training. What the Greeks and the Romans called politics was an almost entirely different thing than what we mean today. It meant "campaigns of conquest against barbarians", with internal conflicts only really occurring in order to determine who would lead the phalanxes and legions in battle. The "politicians" themselves were present in and led all the campaigns, and combat and tactical/strategic training were at least as important skillsets for them to possess as rhetoric. But at some point someone somewhere decided to separate the warmaking from the politicizing, and lo and behold all the new politicians from that point on were faggots. And that point we call the birth of democracy.
   "The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools." -Thucydides

951. Women are the original faggots. Compared to their level of faggotry, actual faggots may as well be straight.

950. Let us present and thoroughly examine an example of why both the right and the left are wrong on everything, always. Take the sexual debate. The left believes that sex is a spectrum all of whose manifestations are, and should be treated as, equal, while the right believes there are only two "natural" sexes and everything else is a disorder. But sexuation evolved about a billion years ago. Before it, there were no sexes. It only evolved, like everything else, because it worked. So the idea of some eternal, "natural" type of sexuation makes no sense to anyone who knows the biology of it, which evidently does not include the conservatives. Moreover, the animal world displays a stunning variety of working sexual setups that include animals who change sexes at will and females who devour the males as a matter of course. I repeat, these aren't dysfunctional disorders but sexual norms that have sustained species for millions of years, and they are all, in one way or another, our genetic cousins, like all life on earth. So we could very well have ended up like them, or may do so in future.
   So the leftists' theory of sexuality as a spectrum is certainly true, on the level of life itself as a biological phenomenon, and the conservatives have proved themselves entirely uneducated on this issue; but on the level of anthropology and sociology, the tables are turned, and it's the leftists who are the idiots. Because for all of human prehistory, and practically all of history—minus the last 60 or so years—the only viable sexes were male and female. For there is simply no room for gay interior designers in the jungle. In the jungle, you either hunt and fight if you are male, or you give birth and nurture if you're female; and if you're none of these things you better learn to PRETEND TO BE as well as you can, if you don't want to be kicked out of the tribe and see your sterile ass go extinct even sooner than normal. So it is only in the past few decades where our lives have grown so comfortable that other types of sexuality than male and female—previously useless types—have had space to grow, and can be tolerated. And therefore, it should come as no suprise that, now that the conditions for these types exist, they are exploding in variety and numbers.
   Is that a good or a bad thing?
   This is a complex question, that merits a complex answer, but the one simple thing we can clear up right off the bat is that neither the right nor the left are capable of participating in this discussion because they are too stupid to grasp even the basics of the issues involved. And this is what I call subhuman.
   All political discourse is of this nature, and it only gets worse as time goes by, because as the culture complexifies, so do the issues it's facing, and thus the theory required to tackle them.
   And the biggest issue of all, for the foreseeable future, is the subhumans themselves. And that's why, sooner or later, we'll have to exterminate them.

949. There are three tiers of thinkers. On the third tier you have people like Jordan Peterson. These people fare well enough when confronted with trifling issues—like whether a language should have ten personal pronouns or ten thousand, for example—and for this they are lauded by the rabble as geniuses. But when it comes to the genuinely tough subjects—the definition of truth say—they can talk nonsense for 20 hours without getting anywhere—and that's why their opinions on these subjects never survive the test of time: they are so confused and sprawling, while simultaneously worthless, that no one can bother memorizing them. If these people were a bit smarter they would not have opined on these subjects at all, but alas they're not, and thus the rest of us have to suffer their verbal diarrhea for a few years, until time wipes it all away.
   Then we have the second tier, that comprises people like Aristotle, whose definition of truth, while next to useless, really, is at least concise enough to be memorable: "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true". This is merely common sense transcribed in a kind of formula that makes autistic people feel they've understood something, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if Aristotle was on the spectrum somewhere. All "analytic philosophers" are in the same boat/spectrum, and all their writings are equally commonsensical and worthless. But if the universe functioned commonsensically, why would we need geniuses lol? So these people are superior to the base crowd-pleasers like Peterson because they at least make a concentrated attempt at grappling with the big issues, and the results are at least readable, if not exactly useful. Their main use, however, is to function as foils for the geniuses; to serve up the balls that the geniuses will hit out of the park, so to speak.
   And finally, on the first tier, we have the bona fide geniuses. Consider Nietzsche's "Truth is will to power". Doesn't it make Peterson's 20-hour verbal diarrhea on the subject seem ludicrous? Even more so considering the latter comes a whole friggin century after Nietzsche, and Peterson has read him? Not to mention the analytic autists, who still pathetically try to pretend that Nietzsche never existed.
   And there you have the three tiers of thinkers. In summa, barely a few dozen people in the history of the species deserve to be carefully read from start to finish, and you won't find any of them on YouTube.

948. The distinction between natural and artificial is itself artificial (which is to say, man-made). Plants and animals know nothing of it. To them everything is natural. And they aren't wrong either.

947. Supposing there's a neurotic, difficult child. One school of thought is to beat him up, bang him about, then maybe he'll change. Then they said, "Oh no, that's not fair to the child, to beat him up, because it was his parents. No, they didn't bring him up properly!"
   And then they say, "Well, punish the parents!"
   Well, the parents say, "Excuse me, our parents were neurotic too, and they brought us up badly so we couldn't help what we did." And the grandparents are dead, we can't get at them, and in any case, supposing we could, we would cast the whole blame back to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
   They started all this nonsense!
   But then Eve would say, "No the Serpent tempted me and I did eat and it was the Serpent's fault!"
   Well, you know, when GOD, in the story of Genesis, asked Eve, "Thou eateth of the Fruit of the Tree where art I told thee thou shouldst not eat?" and she said, "Oh, but the Serpent tempted me and I did eat!"
   GOD looked at the Serpent, and the Serpent didn't make any excuse.
   He probably winked.
   Because the Serpent, being an Angel, was wise enough to know where the present begins.
   So, you see, if you insist on being moved, being determined by the past, that's your game.
   But the fact of the matter is...
   It all starts right now. -Alan Watts

946. If you wanna know who your friends are, ask everyone you know for money. Even if you don't need money, ask for it. Then you'll know what's up.

945. And just as all human physical-concrete processes ultimately aim inward, towards emotions and mentalities, all abstract-theoretic human processes ultimately aim outward, towards objects and activities. And this is the way that religions and philosophies can be understood; every other type of understanding of them is a far inferior, far less useful one. The theory itself is never the object, it's merely a means via which each lifeform expresses what it wants to and can do. The Christian's childish fairy tales are merely a means by which he expresses the brute fact of his lack of energy and capacity to parse advanced civilization and pursue difficult activities like cybernetic engineering and space colonization, while the atheist scientist's ridicule of Christianity is his way of expressing that he's a busy man who has no time for this shit. No one actually gives a fuck if a virgin gave birth in some desert two thousand years ago because three wise mages visited her while a star was falling or some shit. These are just excuses to justify the lack of capacity for the hardcore studying and working that cybernetic engineering and space colonization require, and they'll be duly trotted out as reasons whenever the Christian is asked to perform a concrete task for which he simply lacks the capacity. Likewise, the atheist scientist's inane handwaving about "a random quantum fluctuation in a vacuum" having birthed the universe is nothing but an attempt to get free from the religious nuts' made up rules for how the atheist should behave. The "God WANTS you to do this" formula doesn't really work any more if God has become "a random quantum fluctuation in a vacuum", and that's precisely the goal of this absurd theory: to make God as abstract as possible, so that his moronic desires (which of course are the religious nuts' desires put in their god's mouth) can be ignored so the atheist can get on with doing what he wants to and can do: create a hardcore science fiction future. The Christian cannot do this, so he doesn't want it, so it's no wonder these two people have completely different mentalities (aka religions and philosophies) in their heads.
   So when evaluating mentalities, evaluate instead the people who are propounding them. Are these people strong and intelligent? Capable and energetic? Youthful and enthusiastic? Are they trying to launch bold and difficult new ventures via means of their worldviews and worldtheories, or are they rather trying to shield themselves from competition and withdraw in a dark cave to die a quiet and peaceful death?
   And you will choose among these theories depending on your own capacities for action and concrete works, because "The only thing that matters is the quantum of power you are, all the rest is cowardice" (Nietzsche).

944. And what about Hollywood stars turning Buddhist? Buddhism was invented by a higher IQ race, so it's a higher religion. It wasn't available in Europe back when Europe was turning Christian, but it is available now, and that's why it's fast becoming the religion of choice for those higher IQ Europeans who aren't educated enough to take up philosophy, or gritty enough to stick to atheism/science worship. And if you absolutely have to pick a decadent religion, you may as well pick the best. Of course paganism is much higher, but everyone strong and intelligent enough to be attracted to it has long moved on to science-worship and ultimately philosophy, so only the loons are left with it now, or oddball primitive savages untouched by civilization.

943. The highest thing that a human society can produce is a religion/philosophy; a mindset in other words. So when one society adopts another's mindset, that's clear proof that it's inferior to it, and knows it.
   And so it is that all of Africa is either Christian or Muslim today, with not a single of the continent's original religions surviving. Doubtless the black Christian populations are higher IQ than the Muslim ones, and every country in the world to which Islam has spread is a lower IQ country. That's also how the Yugoslavian and Chechen wars can be understood, as just aggression against the only white populations stupid enough to convert to Islam from Christianity. Of course they needed to be wiped out, and their neighbors at least tried.
   Cassius Clay became Muslim, meanwhile, and changed his name to Muhammad Ali, to spite the whites. Why not pick a native black religion, then, if the whole thing was about black pride? Not proud enough, I guess, to revert to cannibalism and magic.
   So too the Russians converted to Marxism, since slavic intellectual development had always lagged far behind German and West European. So did the whole of Europe turn Christian one day, since Jews are the most psychologically shrewd people on the planet (though by that time all the higher IQ Europeans had long converted to philosophy, so the Jews only managed to snag the lower IQ ones).
   The Japanese and Koreans, meanwhile, have been clumsily aping democracy and Enlightenment values for centuries, while the Chinese have been aping Marxism (even worse than the slavs aped it, which is why the Chinese are doing better at it, since Marxism is intrinsically unworkable, which is why the West ultimately rejected it, with the slavs, the latinos and the Chinese essentially surviving on the intellectual crumbs we threw in the rubbish).
   Doesn't this phenomenon work on the individual level just as well as on the ethnic one? Of course it does, and that's why the philosophers, from whom everyone in one way or another derives their values, are the supreme representatives of the species. And am I not inferior to Heraclitus, Nietzsche and Baudrillard, since I derived my philosophy from them?
   What I did is called progression, which is a type of evolution, more precisely the creative type that leads to advancement and improvement. I didn't just passively copy all those people's philosophies, as if they were an alien thing I was assimilating—let alone badly assimilating it, as all the aforementioned examples—I built upon them and improved them, which is the best type of proof that if I'd never come across them I'd have invented them on my own, buddy. And just as Ferrari engineers from a century ago would have fallen on their knees and bowed down before contemporary ones if they could see a 2019 LaFerrari, so too all the best past philosophers would have converted to my philosophy if they were alive today, because that's how superiority works, get it?

942. Why do I know more than anyone else redux.
   Because the mere whiff of a cool possibility derived from someone's offhand forum post sends me on a wild chase and voyage of discovery that can last for weeks and months and years, while, on the other hand, a normal person won't change the slightest thing about his life even if you write a detailed step-by-step idiot's guide for him on how to achieve everything in life he wants to achieve. You will write the guide, hand it to him, then come back a decade later and he'll be the exact same person, in the exact same position in life (and often worse), with the exact same complex of regrets, fears and insecurities.
   Meanwhile I've no idea what regrets, fears and insecurities even are. Too busy doing actual cool things every day all day to have the time for them, you see. One of these days I'll look into them, though, I promise.

941. You ask me why I know more than anyone else. And I ask you:
   Have you broken your back snowboarding at 17?
   Crashed cars and motorcycles before you even had a license?
   Made tens of thousands of dollars gambling?
   Read more philosophy than university professors of philosophy?
   Lived longer outside your native country than inside it?
   Learned a language better than your native one?
   Read science texbooks and solved math problems for fun?
   Committed crimes?
   Done prison time?
   Had more flings and girlfriends than you can remember the names of?
   Tried every crazy scheme that your brain ever dreamt of?
   Let me put it to you in the kind of simple language with which the Roman agent talked to the Gauls in Asterix: "You don't do stuff, you don't learn stuff." It's as simple as that. If you want to learn stuff, do stuff, and stop trying to imitate the life habits of a vegetable.

940. On expensive luxuries. "A waste of money", the subhumans say. But money is merely the medium of exchange, merely the thing that facilitates the exchange and makes it more efficient. We would have carried out the exchange even without money, for the simple reason that we want to exchange these things that we are exchanging! But the money makes the transaction easier and smoother than the traditional barter system that savages used before civilization. So when a wealthy middle-aged doctor drops 20 grand on a Ducati Panigale, a luxury superbike, the money changing hands is besides the point. It's not "wasted" money, because the doctor wants to ride the superbike, and the Italian engineering geniuses in Bologna want the doctor's medical advice and care, and they enter into exchange to effect the transaction. The money is merely the tool that facilitates the exchange, and nothing more. This money could NOT have been used for anything else, BECAUSE THE DOCTOR WANTED THE SUPERBIKE AND THE ENGINEERS WANTED THE MEDICAL CARE AND ADVICE. They would never in a million years have used the money for anything else, because they didn't WANT anything else, they wanted the fucking superbike and medical advice and care! So you, the average envious resentful subhuman, who eyes the transaction with a view to how you could benefit from it, are doomed from the start, because you are too stupid to be a doctor or a genius engineer, too lazy to study cutting-edge medical techniques and automotive design and production, and hence have nothing to offer to these people to compel them to enter into exchange with you. You are literally fucking useless to all of the geniunely creative people in our civilization, and they want nothing to do with you.
   And the superbike is not a "useless luxury", the superbike IS THE REASON WE ARE ALIVE. It is the actual reason that we cool creative people are so exuberant about life, and so constantly positive and energized. It is the reason we are not continually pessimistic and depressed like the masses of zombified subhumans who have good reason to be continually depressed, since they never manage to experience any of the good things that advanced civilization has to offer (which is why, if you pay attention to what they are saying, they all unanimously hate it and waste no opportunity to heap ungrateful, indecent abuse upon it).

939. All primitive religions were cruel and polytheistic (i.e. complex and mentally and physically demanding), while all modern ones are permissive and monotheistic (i.e. simplistic and forgiving); how to explain this curious "development"? (or rather lack of proper development, which is the reason for the scare quotes).
   History gives us a clue: the modern religions were all invented shortly before or after the invention of philosophy and science, which thereafter gradually became the dominant religions, with all the higher IQ people moving over to them, to the point where I have no doubt that the average IQ of contemporary religious people is so catastrophically low that it shouldn't come as a surprise that they're all essentially incapable of even simple conversation—a world away from the average believer in classical antiquity, who were all geniuses in comparison.
   So that is one, fairly straightforward cause, but there is another, perhaps even more crucial one: the issue of "virility".
   Nietzsche and his acolytes (like Spengler, and the French Nietzscheans such as Bataille, etc.) allege that modern civilization has lost the energy and virility, the "youth" of earlier cultures, and that's why it desperately clings to religions made essentially for losers, with effeminate values such as "love" and "forgiveness" at their core, while their ancestors were content to spend millennia worshipping gods who gloried in death, sacrifice and destruction. And this is clearly the deeper reason, as one look at the kind of effeminate wretch who genuinely follows Christ or Buddha today can show. They are simple-minded because all the smart people have moved on to philosophy and science, but they are effeminate because nature has been denied its traditional role of... killing them all off. So allow me to elaborate a bit on how that works.
   In the jungle, if you are low-energy you die. Even women and children must be strong, even old people, or they are either left behind or slow down and bring the entire tribe down with them. If the men are strong enough, they can "carry" the weaker tribe members, figuratively but sometimes also literally; but for the men weakness of any kind is a death sentence—for themselves, and ultimately for their entire tribe, because there's no one else to carry them, and certainly not imaginary deities who demand that one spend half the day praying to them, reading their wretched books and neurotically spinning about their imaginary transgressions.
   That's how nature keeps a species, and a culture, strong and virile: not by somehow "boosting" them and making them stronger, but simply by relentlessly murdering all the inferior genetic combinations that the crapshoot of sexuated procreation habitually throws up. And of course, if the weak are murdered they don't get a chance to procreate, and bring into the world even weaker creatures than themselves, an escalating process of genetic debasement which if left unchecked for a few millennia culminates with grown men demonstrating in the streets about their right to pee in girls' bathrooms.
   This is the "loving", "balanced" nature that environmentalists are so fond of—our dear life-giving Gaia—"red in tooth and claw" as Darwin said: but enviromentalists don't read any more than modern religious people do, let alone scientists like Darwin. Creatures so weak and mentally deficient that even the simple act of reading and parsing a centuries-old science text that we teach to children now is beyond them. But, despite their weakness, nature somehow failed to murder them, because something much stronger than it came between them and protected them: and this stronger thing we call civilization.

938. A great example that demonstrates how weak, effeminate males like Roosh and Rollo Tomassi are ultimately responsible for all the societal ills they bemoan, blaming them on everyone but themselves (as is the custom of weaklings), is the fate of people like Woody Allen and Louis C.K., ultra-liberal leftist comedians lording it over the rest of us with their moral superiority for decades who suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of this superiority and in danger of losing their entire lives. You fucktards have been eroding social mores and mankind's faith in its entire past for decades now, and you wonder how society has fallen so low as to attempt to ban humor? You don't merely deserve to get metooed, you deserve hanging, just like Roosh, Tomassi and all the other gay fuckwits who try to pass for men today! That perverted wretch Kevin Spacey is perhaps the worst current example of this: a legit faggot who finds himself in trouble in a society that supposedly loves faggotry. But though Spacey is a freak, there are worse freaks than him around today, and they are using the means that the original freaks invented to get the upper hand on them. That's how the liberal scam works: The weak erode society's norms in order for them to live, thus creating conditions that allow the even weaker to rise up and adopt the same means, eroding norms further and further. Where does this debasement stop? When it hits rock bottom, when this erosion gets so bad that the average person begins suffocating and can't live within it, threatening to destroy the entire society that all these parasites are feeding off of. That's when the average person fights back. Which is what's happening now. But one should never forget that it was the average person himself who allowed the original freaks to get the upper hand in the first place, due to his feminization, and hence it is their fault for the position that they find themselves in, as always. The whining=resentment is merely the acknowledgement of this: acknowledgment of this original failure. Do you see me whining about anything? No, because I am a perpetual winner, and thus have no reason, let alone need, to whine about anything. I spent the entire day yesterday binge-watching Netflix, and I'll spend the entire day tomorrow surfing and playing videogames without a care in the world. This is my life and I love it! A life that would have been impossible in any other era, hence unlike Roosh and Tomassi I love this fucking era, even with all its effeminate degeneracy! If this aphorism seems shrill to you, it's because you're dumb and can't tell the difference between a single aphorism and an entire life! This aphorism is not my entire life, this aphorism is just my view on a specific subject, and all I am doing here is just pointing out that faggots are faggots and freaks are freaks, and therefore they behave like freaks and faggots (with all the attendant whining), that is all. Aside from that, I inhabit paradise every day of my existence, and the freaks and faggots and their deranged antics are part of that paradise, as comic relief, so of course I love them too when all is said and done lol.
   Nietzsche: "On the other hand, nothing is more strictly forbidden them than ugly manners or a pessimistic outlook, an eye that makes ugly — to say nothing of indignation at the collective aspect of things. Indignation is the privilege of the Chandala; pessimism likewise. 'The world is perfect' — thus speaks the instinct of the most spiritual, the affirmative instinct —: 'imperfection, everything beneath us, distance between man and man, the pathos of this distance, the Chandala themselves pertain to this perfection.'"

937. Democritus: "Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is just opinion."
   And isn't that "just" opinion too?
   Ergo, nothing exists except opinion.
   And isn't opinion a matter of will?
   Ergo, nothing exists except will.
   And yes, that is opinion too. Which is to say will.

936. Two-hour debate on YouTube between Jordan Peterson, Stephen Fry, Michael Dyson and Michelle Goldberg on political correctness. Utterly surprised about the depth of everyone's arguments, both on the left, and on the right. It's almost easier to understand quantum mechanics than the finer shades of what they are saying.
   But how does any of that matter when we are on the threshold of creating genetic code from scratch? Watching them argue is like watching ants fight while you're standing over them with a broom and ready to sweep them all away. Absolutely fascinated by these absurd little creaters who have no idea where they are, what they are and what's about to befall them.
   The white academic, the homosexual comic, the black preacher, the feminist blogger.
   You ask me who is "right" and who is "wrong"...
   But the better question to ask, as far as I am concerned, is "who cares".

935. In dreaming we have complete freedom, since we create the entire thing out of our own imaginations, yet while dreaming we feel as if it's being imposed on us—and that's precisely how our waking life works too, since there's no fundamental difference between the two conditions. But no one besides an Overman can understand this—that everyone is in fact creating his own reality at every moment, and is thus the complete master of it, with every last detail of it fully belonging to him. Not even humans understand this, or could ever understand it, though I will still try to explain it to them in the last chapter, among other ultimate ideas, but expect me to fail spectacularly and to engender wide disbelief and horrible misinterpretations.
   With Overmen, actually, it even works the other way around, since, precisely because we are so deeply aware of how we are causing everything around us in the waking state, we are perfectly willing to believe in our apparent powerlessness while dreaming, and just go with the flow. That is how we take a break from being the cause of everything: by dreaming that we are powerless.

934. Researchers found that applying an electric current to a part of the brain linked to violent acts reduced people's intentions to commit assault.
   Still waiting for the study that finds if you kill people they commit no more crimes.

933. How pathetic the Russians and Chinese are. Trying to ascend to the world stage and display their "power" by bickering with their neighbors over tiny desert islands, or trying to mess with the West merely for the sake of messing with us. Little dogs. Not a chance against the West at all, and they know it. The Chinese continually trying to rewrite history is just as lame as the Greeks' slavic neighbors pretending that they are Greek.
   Best to look away. The less attention we pay to them the better. Our attention is all they want.

932. "The feminine imperative." This is Rollo Tomassi's and the faggotcube's catch-all theory to explain the feminization of society: "It's happening because women are making it happen", they say. But the women "making it happen" are anything but feminine, they are the exact opposite of feminine: butch ugly lesbian warpigs like Norway's current PM who spend parliament sessions playing Pokemon while actual women are busy getting their nails done and sorting through their Tinder prospects. In healthier times, no one took butch ugly lesbian warpigs seriously, and they were "left on the shelf", as the expression went; but at some time in the recent past people started taking them seriously, and now they run entire countries, so what changed?
   What changed was people like Rollo Tomassi and the faggotcube becoming so feminized that they could no longer beat their own womenfolk up, shout down the ugly warpigs, and throw the homosexuals off the roof, that's what happened. What happened was that men became feminized, and then they started feminizing society! It's Rollo Tomassi and the faggotcube that are feminizing society not my big-titted ex-girlfriend whose brain is flooded with so much estrogen she has trouble planning what she will do in the next hour let alone what an entire society will do in the next ten years! It is men that shape societies because women simply lack the foresight, patience and commitment to do so: women live in the present, like eternal children: how could they ever shape anything lol? The poor morons can't even shape their own children, let alone anyone else lol.
   So when you see Rollo Tomassi and his effeminate uneducated faggotcube scribbler buddies ignore men like me and my ideas as "too extreme" (read: too manly), and blame the state of entire societies on the "imperative" of some Tinder hoes, remember that the West hasn't thrown fags off of roofs for a very long time, and that was a philosophical error of the first rank that is the very first thing that must be remedied if we're some day to begin masculinizing society again. (And yes, that means throwing Rollo Tomassi and his buddies off the roof too if they refuse to STFU and get in line.)

931. Man, things were so much simpler on the internet ten years ago. Getting banned from a bunch of forums for being "too extreme" was nothing compared to what the two sides are doing to each other now. They are trying to cut each other's internet off lol. The right says "We stand for free speech!" but Roosh bans everyone who disagrees with him lol. He's like "Yeah, but I run a private site, FB and Twitter aren't private". Actually, they are. They are just extremely successful, unlike your site. And since he's too weak to fight the techies on their own turf (which is coding), he pulls the morality card, like all weaklings. "It's not moral to ban people you don't agree with! (though I do it on my site anyway)". Both the far right and the far left have nothing to do with free speech. It's the people in the middle who want it, because they want to STAY in the middle. And as long as enough of those people exist... we'll have free speech. If I took over most people would have no speech at all, let alone free speech lol. They'd be too busy slaving away all day in the mines to have the energy to talk lol.

930. Neither the left's paradise-on-earth, nor the right's return-to-the-past will happen. What will happen, if the species has any strength left in it, is the sci-fi dystopia, because it's a far more interesting scenario. Wanting things to become "better" (i.e. easier, more boring) is a result of weakness. Wanting things to become "worse" (i.e. tougher, more interesting) is a result of strength. And it is intrinsic to the definition of strength that it'll eventually prevail! (otherwise we wouldn't have defined it as such!) QED.

929. I finally understood women when I began comparing them with weak men. In terms of behavior, there's no difference between them. Weak men are essentially women, and women may as well be weak men. Neither know anything about loyalty, honesty or honor; both are attracted to and lose their heads over men of power and status; cruel at the rare moments when they have the upper hand, resentful and passive-aggressive when they lack it; with zero sense of self-worth and self-confidence except in rare moments when inflated by environmental factors, only to deflate again moments after; childishly enthusiastic over new goals and relationships, only to immediately abandon them when things get rough and real effort is required; and above all ultimately uncaring for anyone or anything beyond themselves.
   There's no point getting worked up over any of this: this is simply how the weak must behave in order to get ahead in the universe. Loyalty, honesty and honor are simply luxuries that weakness can't afford. If you value these qualities, and desire to fraternize with people who possess them, seek strong men instead, because only they can afford them. And as for the women and the weak men in your life, however nicely you may generally treat them, always remember what kind of treatment Zarathustra says they ultimately deserve and most strongly respond to: the kind fit for slaves, that requires a good whipping.

928. Orson Welles: "Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say, and not giving a damn."
   Why? Because your style is who you are. Ergo, supreme self-confidence is a prerequisite for true style, because if you lack that you will give a damn, and therefore unfailingly seek to make up the confidence shortfall by emulating the style of others, thus obscuring your true style. Properly speaking, you won't even have a style, since you won't even have had an opportunity to develop it. And that's what the channers mean by "NPC".

927. All races practiced slavery, and it was the whites that ended it, i.e. the opposite of what is taught today. But magnanimity has never been a virtue of the defeated, so we'll take your resentment instead, no worries.

926. "Man's true purpose is to procreate." This gay rubbish passes for wisdom among alt-retards. But the history books are full of scientists, men of letters and engineers who did not procreate. Are they not men then? Are they failures? But the dinosaurs were procreating like gangbusters when they disappeared, they did not die due to lack of procreation, they died due to lack of science and technology, due to lack of thought, lack of intelligence; precisely, that is to say, the one thing that the "unmanly" childless human scientists, men of letters and engineers had, which alt-retards who place procreation above all other human activities lack. Moreover, procreation in itself is useless if say your child doesn't end up procreating too. Don't you retards say that it's all about passing on your jeans—sorry your genes—to future generations? Okay then, if your child fails to procreate, according to your criterion, your own procreation was in vain. You may as well have been spending your time masturbaiting instead, and the net evolutionary result would have been the same, according to your wretched understanding of evolution.
   I am not saying that procreation is worthless, of course, all I am saying is that it CANNOT be taken as man's PRIMARY goal, let alone as the measure of manhood, because that is precisely how we measure the manhood of ANIMALS for crying out loud, all of which are in the process of being exterminated precisely because their manhood consists of nothing beyond base wretched procreation!
   Man's primary purpose then is by no means procreation, and that's precisely why the West is currently outsourcing it to third-worlders, incidentally, who are a bit like animals in this respect. Whether that's a good or a bad idea is another matter, but what's certain is that one can't expect a genius like me to spend 18 years raising a child when I could be putting all that time in cutting-edge work that no other lifeform in the known universe, let alone the planet, can create. And that's more or less how it has been with all of mankind's greatest thinkers. If you alt-morons knew anything of high-level creativity, you'd know this. But you don't know this, because you're brainless faggots, and that's why pretty much every single of your fuckwitted proclamations can be blown the fuck out with a mere couple of minutes of examination.
   And this, by the way, applies to the ideas and ultimate worldviews of EVERY SINGLE lifeform in the history of the known universe, apart from me and a couple other dead philosophers in heaven. So why are you taking seriously anyone other than us, again?

925. "We no longer believe that truth remains truth when the veil is withdrawn; we have lived too much to believe this."
   Quantum mechanics, Nietzsche, 1886. Who else understands this? No one, because no one ever understood neither Nietzsche, nor quantum mechanics.

924. Say what you want about SJWs, but I wouldn't want a world without them, they are so damn entertaining! They are like the X-Men: they really believe they are the next stage in evolution, Homo Sapiens 2.0, no sapiens, all homo.

923. Chris Langan and Nick Land are the Anglo-Saxon versions of Wittgenstein and Baudrillard, respectively. The lame, shallow, boring and pathetic versions of them, that is. Not to mention coming decades after the philosophers they poorly emulated, and ripped off.
   Langan, reportedly the "smartest man in America", with 195 IQ, claims to have "achieved absolute knowledge" by creating a theory which "you can't relativize your way out of by changing the context". "Logically", he claims, "there is no way out" of his theory.
   "Logically" lol.
   According to whose logic?
   From this single passage I can conclude that his theory is bullshit. Merely the phrase "you can't relativize your way out of it" negates perspectivism, i.e. the existence of other lifeforms. How about if I smash your head in before you've had a chance to communicate your theory, and the rest of the universe never manages to find out about it? Have I "relativized myself out of it" now you fucking slow-witted moron?
   Even his theory's name is bullshit. "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" as if all models weren't "cognitive-theoretic" lol. That's why we call it theory! Newton's laws are a "cognitive-theoretic" model too dumbass! Just call it after yourself like all philosophers ever—"Langan's theory" would do fine—and stop trying to browbeat us with pompous titles and your IQ as substitutes for your clearly lacking understanding. "No way out of" his theory lol. Anglo-Saxons still grasping at straws in the 21st century to avoid relinquishing their hold on "objective reality"/"absolute knowledge" news at 11. If he read Nietzsche at all, he sure as fuck failed to understand him, like all Anglos. "Smartest man in America" still doesn't mean much, it would seem, vs. smartest European. I just blew him the fuck out in a few lines, and I barely spent a few minutes reading his tripe. How much IQ does it take for an Anglo theorist to not appear retarded to a European? Way more than Chris Langan has, that's for sure!
   And I have even less to say on Land. Such unwieldy, torturous prose, bogged down in a swamp of ill-fitting adjectives that suffocate the sentences, preventing the text from breathing! Getting through one of his pages is a mission, and for so little reward—a world away from Baudrillard's prose that flies by like the wind, even if most of the time you've no idea what he's talking about (I am referring to you guys; I obviously understand everything). You still learn more about the world from the little of Baudrillard that you do understand, than from pages upon pages of Land's simplistic regurgitation of Nietzsche. Even the titles he picks are boring as fuck; I struggle to get excited about any of his essays from the titles, and when I reluctantly turn to one I am turned off from the very first paragraph.
   To be sure, there's good stuff in their work, among all the bad, boring prose and rampant misunderstandings; I've seen some in my skimming, so it's definitely there; but all of it's been said earlier elsewhere, and with much more style and flair, to the extent that, at the end of the day, I just can't bring myself to care.

922. The term world/universe is the outermost concept that we possess, the term will is the innermost, and Schopenhauer in his "World as Will" was the philosopher who first brought them together.

921. One of the most intractable problems in philosophy has been the question of whether to conceptualize the universe as infinite or finite. With infinity we get nowhere, since it's impossible to visualize, and therefore to conceptualize, on top of the brute fact that if the universe were infinite there wouldn't be any reason for conflict (since there'd always be "free space" in which to expand) and hence for things to transform into other things—no reason for flux, and neither for reaction—no reason even for perception, ultimately.
   So the universe is finite, but that's where the other, deeper problem arises: that we are unable to visualize, and once more therefore to conceptualize, a boundary with nothing on the other side. But this problem too can be solved if we consistently define our concepts of the boundary and the inside/outside distinction. Once we realize that the outermost thing—the universe—must simultaneously be the innermost—merely due to how we have defined these concepts, which is to say in a circular fashion, like all concepts, with each necessarily depending on its "opposite" for its definition—the problem vanishes and the best three-dimensional equivalent to the four-dimensional (indeed n-dimensional) universe is the Mobius strip, a finite but boundless surface in which the concepts inside/outside blend perfectly into each other and depend entirely on convention. Remember what the Nazarene said regarding the Kingdom of God's location? "It's inside you." And that's indeed where the universe is, as I have repeatedly explained, affirming once more the circularity of all conceptions, as the stupidest and smartest human beings, as the sickest and the healthiest—the weakest and the strongest—arrive at the same conclusion even if by entirely antithetical paths (and where else would they arrive if they universe is finite lol?)
   So we at last come full circle. But remember what I said before, about the size of the circle...

920. I've never seen anyone who seriously uses the word "motivation" succeed at anything. "I need motivation" means "I don't like it", and "I don't like it" means "I am going to fail at it"—it's as simple as that. Even if you like something you might fail at it, but if you don't like it you will definitely fail, so why bother?
   So for all those dudes out there thirsting after motivation, I have this question to ask: Why don't you try doing something you like instead? Motivation is for losers, winners do stuff they actually enjoy.

919. Monotheistic religions are the ultimate form of conspiracy theory.

918. The subhumans' hatred of Jews is exasperating, but simultaneously hilarious. The retards think the Jews will sweat the burning of a couple of synagogues. We're talking about a tiny nation of barely ten million people that has been fighting hundreds of millions of Araboids for decades now and WINNING. Their friends and loved ones are getting blown to pieces every other day by deranged sandmonkeys and you really think they'll give a shit that you posted some stupid memes about them on the internet?

917. Feminism is the radical hypothesis that women are people. We thought it up, we tested it, it didn't work out: that's what experiments are for. Onwards!

916. Criminals vs. Police. Criminals probably outnumber the police, and are "alpha" according to faggotcube theory, compared to the "beta" cops. So why do they always lose? Lack of organization. Can never form more than a "gang". But can a gang beat the Roman Empire? If in a bank robbery the cops always win in a shootout, it's because they are more, and better trained. Better disciplined too. But forget about training and discipline for a moment. We are talking about a situation where the criminals ALWAYS dictate the time and place. Sun Tzu's laws, etc. They have ALL the advantages, and STILL lose? Why only three people? Why not bring 100? Utterly lacking organization: i.e. no alphas to lead, and no betas to follow. Criminals are sigmas. And that's why they are in prison.

915. Transhumanism. The truth of the matter, and the sacrifices required to get us there, are both so far away from what subhumans want to hear that they will never discover them. It's time to stop seeking a software solution to a hardware problem.

914. "Human beings didn't evolve towards intelligence, human beings evolved towards dependence, to being completely useless when not embedded in a complex social/semiotic system. When you think of how man is born tethered with a literal cord of dependency to their parent, you realize Rousseau was literally retarded."

   True enough. But just as you eventually cut the cord to your mother, and from a fetus you emerge into the light as a child, some day one of us will cut the cord of dependence to the species. And it is at that point that he will emerge in the cosmos, no longer as a man, but a god.

913. My thoughts on inceldom. I've met some incels in the past year. My reading is that they are very low-energy low-T people who just don't really want sex or girls all that much. When they say they want sex or girls, they don't really mean it. It's like me saying I want a Ferrari. Sure, if it fell out of the sky into my lap, I'd take it, and enjoy it, but I don't REALLY want it because if I really wanted it I wouldn't be home today reading Leibniz, I would be out there hustling to make the money to get it.
   I think the incels say they want girls and sex more out of peer pressure than anything else. Since everyone around them seems to want these things, they just go with the flow and say they want them too. But when you tell them to do 1, 2, 3 steps to get girls, they do nothing. Or they try for a week, and then give up.
   The media and the PUAsphere like to portray incels as sad, but the ones I met were not sad at all. I mean, when I was 14 I was "incel" too—we all were—but since I'd never had sex or female companionship, I had no idea what I was missing. So I was fully happy with my sports and games and studies, and my life was missing nothing. Once I got my first taste of sex at 17, all this changed, and once I got my first love affair, right after, things changed even more, and now if you told me that I'd never taste these fruits again I would indeed grow sad.
   See, the thing with incels, as I realized, is that, no matter their age, they're still children. Sex is one of the ways in which a boy matures into a man, and the incels have never had that. Then earning a woman's love and seeing her get hooked on you, and learning to love her back and protect her, is another huge masculine coming-of-age experience. Suddenly, you go from a kid who is dependent on others to having someone who looks up to you and whom you must defend. The sex is part of that, but the relationship is 1000x more significant. So even if the incel manages to get sex somehow, he still hasn't had the real thing. FFS most of them live with their parents into middle age. They are children in practically every metric that exists. Their emotional world is shallow as a child's. And just as a child throws a temper tantrum and cries for a minute when it doesn't get its way, and then practically forgets it, and is suddenly happy again and busy with its toys, so it is with the incels. They can't be hurt deeply because there's no depth to them because they never matured by bonding with anyone (not even with male friends, since most of them are friendless).
   That's why, though before I met these guys, I was concerned about them and about incels in general, because like the PUAs I had been projecting the feelings I would have had if I was incel into them, I am no longer concerned. If they want girls, the info is out there exactly how to get them. So if they are not getting them, nor even TRYING to do so, I know they don't want them and are happy doing whatever other things they enjoy doing.

912. Alex Jones is right when he says of the liberals that "they are not human". But he's wrong when he says they are demons. I am the demon, they are just subhuman.

911. If every person had their IQ tattooed onto their forehead so many modern problems and confusions would be solved we'd barely have any left.

910. I need meaning = I want someone to tell me what to do. Same exact business as with "happiness", etc. When the ultimate goal is an abstract concept like "meaning" and "happiness" (or "good", "grace", "redemption" and so on), one can deduce weakness with utter certainty. Strength has concrete, external goals; weakness has abstract internal ones, for the simple reason that we have DEFINED strength and we MEASURE it, in physics as everywhere else, by looking for and comparing EXTERNAL EFFECTS (otherwise the Indian gurus, who routinely defraud their followers with bogus claims of "inner strength", would rule our societies instead of being laughingstocks of it). No valid argument can be advanced against the above; it simply "follows from the definition", as mathematicians say. The only question left to ask, then, is if you understand the definition. Do you?

909. Jaime Lannister telling Cersei before they are buried alive: "Nothing else matters, only us." Even the lowest worm feels this way, because that's what consciousness is: a true orgy of the will.

908. The mechanics of blame/rationality. When we point the blame towards someone or something for a state of things, it's always with a view towards future action that reshapes this state of things. The blame itself is never literal, never real, it's merely a useful fiction, a mere tool, because in a universe where everything is connected to and conditioned by everything else there's never anyone to blame for anything; rather, EVERYONE is to "blame" for EVERYTHING, everywhere and at all times. That's what chaos theory expresses with the example of a butterfly flapping its wings contributing to a cyclone forming on the other side of the planet. Therefore, to say it once again, blame/rationality is never real, it's ALWAYS FALSE. For example, the alt-retards say that feminism is to blame for the collapse of the family. But I say that weak men like the alt-retards are to blame for feminism. And further I say that civilization is to blame for weak men. And who is to "blame" for civilization? Strong/intelligent men that decided to create it in order to best shape their environment. And who is to "blame" for strong/intelligent men? Evolution all the way back to protozoa, hydrogen atoms and the Big Bang. Therefore, who, ultimately, is to blame for feminism? The universe, end of story. And I can apply this line of reasoning to every instance of blame or rationality that has ever been or ever will be uttered. You will always find "the universe" as the ultimate culprit in the existence of any given state of things, because that's where the rabbit hole always leads if you dig deep enough. Of course, only a philosopher can dig that deep, so no one else ever comes to this realization. But now that I've explained it to you dimwits in plain language, maybe a few of you will get it, and be able to discover it and explain it to others next time they tell you that the Jews or some other poor scapegoat is ULTIMATELY responsible for some state of things or other.
   NO ONE is "ultimately" responsible for ANYTHING. And though taking responsibility for something is as false as blaming it on someone else, that is the falsity that belongs to the strong just as surely as the neverending blame game, with no action involved to move things forward, is the type of falsity that belongs to the weak.
   Ultimately, the only thing that matters to the strong is their goal. If my goal is to reshape civilization in order to cleanse it of feminism and other modern neuroses, I need to find a pressure point to push; I need to decide where to use my force in order to effect change. That is why I need to "blame" something; in more neutral language, to find the "reason" for it. Once I have identified weak men as the reason for feminism, I need to find a way to strengthen these men up, and then they'll take care of the feminists and all the other neuroses. And the way to strengthen men, as a group, is to kill off most of them, because they are beyond hope and their wretched activity and inane bleating are weakening everyone around them. In the old days, war and disease would take care of this vital function by ridding us of the most wretched weaklings among us, but since society has eliminated those with the thoughtless universal application of science and technology, we need a substitute for them, and that's where the drone army comes in. But that will be discussed at length in due course. The main point to grasp here, for the purposes of the current discussion, is that I am not REALLY blaming weak men for feminism, because I just said that the thoughtless application of science and technology created so many weak men, and who is responsible for this "thoughtless application" if not the older statesmen and philosophers? So I am not singling out weak men ULTIMATELY, and MALICIOUSLY, as the alt-retards do when they go around looking for scapegoats like the liberals or the soyboys or the Jews or whoever they happen to hate on any given day. All I am doing is looking for the optimal point to apply pressure in order to achieve my goal, with no moral condemnation involved at all. And that's why I picked contemporary modern men as that point, instead of dead philosophers, since I can't apply pressure to the dead lol, but weak men are all around me, and if my drone army kills off all the weakest of them I'll be well on my way towards shaping future society to match my goals. I don't HATE weak modern men. I really have nothing against them anymore than I have against the ants whose colonies I had to flatten to build my house. Both ants and weak men are ultimately blameless for their existence, and for being constituted the way they are; but that doesn't change the fact that they are standing in the way of my plans, and thus they must be flattened—that is all. And that is a whole other ballgame from weaklings like the alt-retards who hate everyone and everything around them for a state of things that they really should be blaming on themselves and their own weakness if they actually wanted to change it—which they don't (otherwise they'd have already changed it—it's not that hard at all if you're not a wimpy whiny faggot, which they are).
   To recap, reasons don't exist for anything in the universe, and rationality is false. Reasons are just tools that we invent in order to help us shape our environment. The reasons you find for a state of things depend on the new shape you want to give to this state of things, and since different people have different goals, they will naturally invent different reasons. That's how the universe functions, i.e. in a far more complex manner than the simplistic objective one in which subhuman thinkers believe, who think that everything happens "for a reason", or even for a number of reasons. Everything happens for AN INFINITY OF REASONS out of which each lifeform picks out a couple that are useful to it to advance its goals, and champions them as the reasons. Then the lifeforms and their various reasons clash, and the game goes on.
   Therefore, whenever you see someone STOP with blame and moral condemnation, you can safely deduce weakness. But when you see someone BEGIN with "blame"/reasons, and then with clinical precision outline the steps that must be taken to reshape the situation to his will, without any hatred or moral posturing involved, you can safely deduce strength. The strength of a lifeform that knows what it wants and calmly and clinically plans out how to get there. This is how things get done, and whining is a mere symptom of the incapacity to get anything done. And that's why it always loses.

Nietzsche: "What alone can our teaching be? — That no one gives a human being his qualities: not God, not society, not his parents or ancestors, not he himself... No one is accountable for existing at all, or for being constituted as he is, or for living in the circumstances and surroundings in which he lives. The fatality of his nature cannot be disentangled from the fatality of all that which has been and will be. He is not the result of a special design, a will, a purpose; he is not the subject of an attempt to attain to an 'ideal of man' or an 'ideal of happiness' or an 'ideal of morality' — it is absurd to want to hand over his nature to some purpose or other. We invented the concept 'purpose': in reality purpose is lacking... One is necessary, one is a piece of fate, one belongs to the whole, one is in the whole — there exists nothing which could judge, measure, compare, condemn our being, for that would be to judge, measure, compare, condemn the whole... But nothing exists apart from the whole!— That no one is any longer made accountable, that the kind of being manifested cannot be traced back to a causa prima, that the world is a unity neither as sensorium nor as 'spirit', this alone is the great liberation — thus alone is the innocence of becoming restored... The concept 'God' has hitherto been the greatest objection to existence... We deny God; in denying God, we deny accountability: only by doing that do we redeem the world. — "

907. Other races are not intellectual in the least (China, Japan and their two or three high-IQ satellites excepted). In Africa, Indonesia, and so on no one cares about anything except short term material things and mindlessly consuming the basest products of Western culture. A bunch of low IQ morons, no thinkers among them at all. In France, the rabble at least PRETENDS to be intellectual. Hipsterism is a Western phenomenon for a reason, a white one even, and far preferable to the complete mental vacuity that prevails everywhere else. Entire CONTINENTS filled with ugly little ants that have yet to grapple with any intellectual problem! Why do we need them again? Better even to be a Western hipster than to live like a mindless beast, as they do. If you're an exception, we'll try our best to save you when the time to unleash the drone army has arrived, but the rule must be abolished, and it will be. I have spoken.

906. How to explain the explosion of colonialism? Playing a strategy videogame helps. If you are a European nation in the 16th century, crowded on a tiny little continent surrounded by dozens of other nations full of belligerent supermen all armed to the teeth with the latest war technologies and with a vast history of warfare behind them—and therefore a genius for it unmatched in the rest of the world—it makes sense to look for expansion elsewhere in the globe, and then, having exploited this expansion to the full, come back and beat all of your neighbors with it. That's how tiny nations like the Netherlands ended up with empires stretching halfway across the globe, while Britain became de facto planet master for centuries. The subuman savages had no hope, and those of them that did survive the ordeal of European colonialism largely unscathed—Japan and China above all—did so thanks to pity more than anything.

905. Nietzsche: "Where the good begins. —Where the poor power of the eye can no longer see the evil impulse as such because it has become too subtle, man posits the realm of goodness; and the feeling that we have now entered the realm of goodness excites all those impulses which had been threatened and limited by the evil impulses, like the feeling of security, of comfort, of benevolence. Hence, the duller the eye, the more extensive the good. Hence the eternal cheerfulness of the common people and of children. Hence the gloominess and grief—akin to a bad conscience—of the great thinkers."

904. You live in a universe where giant rocks from space routinely wipe out trillions of lifeforms indiscriminately in a flash, and you think there's something inherently "wrong" about mere raping and killing? But you've never heard of celestial mechanics and astrophysics, and if you have you lack the imagination to conceptualize what they entail on the local level, so all these processes may as well not exist as far as you're concerned, and there's no need for you to incorporate them in your worldview. And that's why your worldview is so petty and boring and pathetic, just like you.

903. "I'm not black, I'm OJ." —O. J. Simpson

902. If the group you belong to sucks, leave the group, and be an individual. Greece, and Southern Europe in general, have lower IQ than Northern Europe, which has lower IQ in its turn than East Asian nations—but I am still the Overman who wrote the best book ever, and all the rest of you are still dumb faggots who'd understand jack-shit about life and the universe if I hadn't bothered to take time out of my day to explain it all to you in plain simple words as if you were children. Statistics are for the average and the common and God does not slot neatly into any of your made up categories while laughing to tears from Olympus at all your simplistic graphs and childish conclusions.

901. I am sorry, but I can't take the "Chinese threat", or even the "Asian threat" in general seriously. Hollywood romanticization of martial arts aside, have you ever seen any actual Asian people fight? Even in their own movies they seem to spend most of the time flailing their arms around and making girly noises than hitting each other; they seem like children to me, and not particularly masculine children either. At the end of the day, setting culture aside for a moment, basic biology shows it all: you've got a sea of tiny, thin dudes that look like stick figures with barely any hair on their chests or faces (not to mention that many of them grow their nails like women, among other horrific grooming faux pas); how masculine can these people possibly be? History itself tells you, "Not very". The entire Chinese "superpower" itself was conquered and humiliated by tiny neighboring Japan during WW2, and it would still be Japanese if the Japanese had had any notion of strategy and hadn't autistically decided to attack the entire world at the same time (copying Germany no doubt, but doing it badly, as with all their first-generation knock-off efforts. Too bad for them war isn't the same as making Walkmans, and they were never given a second chance.) Besides, if the West ever had to fight China for its survival, you bet your ass the Russians would join us so fast it'd make your head spin, because at that point it'd be a showdown of white vs. yellow, and the whitest nation on the planet is of course Russia. It's also the second biggest military power after the US, so you'd have the first and second strongest nations fighting the third... which is game over for the chinks before the war has even begun. Their Sun Tzu himself would advise them to shut the fuck up and keep bowing, which is what they are currently doing. And that's besides noting that no one else in the world actually likes the Chinese. So it wouldn't be white vs. yellow, it would be everyone vs. the Chinese because the Japanese hate them so much they would of course be on our side, and ditto for every single other Asian nation around them.
   But ultimately, geopolitics aside, the issue I have with Asians runs far deeper. The very fact that in the entirety of Asia the group matters vastly more than the individual, and Western-style individualism never took hold there, let alone arose of its own accord, tells me that there's something wrong with those people; that there's something weak about them. Not so weak as in Africa, were civilization never arose due to low IQ, but weak enough so that, the civilizations that did arise there, never managed to move out of religion, via individual emancipation, and start on the road to endgame philosophy and Overman worship. That's why there are no Asian intellectuals today. There are a couple of Asian-Americans or whatnot who playact intellectualism in the West (Fukuyama with his stupid book, that dumb phycisist popularizer Michio Kaku, etc.), but native-born and -raised Asian intellectuals there are none. The poor dudes simply have no idea what to do with individualism, so they are completely lost in the modern intellectual landscape, which is strictly individualist and therefore also atheist in nature. Atheism meaning, of course, as I've already explained, "I am strong enough to not need anyone", while the Asians still need everyone; they need their frigging group because that's how herd psychology works in the weak, and everyone in Asia is weak.
   Look at history with the above in mind. The Japanese trapped in their tiny island until we showed them how to make boats, the Chinese coming close to circumnavigating the globe but giving up at the last moment because lacking in basic masculine drive and wonder and ambition. If they have a couple dozen individuals in their collective history worth looking up to and emulating, it's almost as if by accident, since any given tiny European nation has more. And you want me to fear a nation, or a race, of intellectually dead effeminate men-children? I am sorry, but I can't do that. I reserve my fear for the fearsome, and there's nothing fearsome about Asia in general or China in particular from where I am standing.
   The above was said for the highest Asian cultures, by the way: the Chinese and Japanese and their satellites (Korea, Taiwan, Singapore). Every other Asian culture is a shithole of low IQ monkeys in comparison. If the Chinese look down on the Thais or the Indonesians and so on, they have a right to do so, and I would be agitating for Chinese dominance in the area if I didn't rather we kept those places as playgrounds for wealthy Westerners instead.
   I know I have many Asian readers, by the way, and I hate to upset them with the above analysis because East Asians especially make for very good nerds due to their high IQ, and since, among many other things, I am a nerd myself, I very much enjoy interacting with them in certain contexts. So I am sorry for hurting your feelings, dudes, but someone had to say this stuff, and it may as well be me since I am the only one who truly understands it. This is the ultimate analysis of your ethnicities and cultures that I bequeath to you, and what you do with it, beyond this point, is up to you.

900. The dirty secret of the Marvel movies is that the Avengers comic was never among the best. Group comics were always inferior to the best solo ones, for the same reason that ensemble movies are inferior: because multiple protagonists hurt identification with a single character, which destroys immersion. But the Marvel movies are structured as if the best ones are the group ones that culminate the plots, because wow look at all the stars in a single movie. In comics the group plots in group comics are mainly a bonus, almost never the main meal. The main meal are the solo comics. Barely any exceptions exist, like Claremont's X-Men run, and the reason that that's good is because it only focuses on barely three characters—essentially a love triangle. All the other characters are extras. In contrast to movie Avengers where there are no protagonists and everyone is an extra, so they end up being fun spectacles, but still the best movies are Spider-Man 1 and 2, Thor 1 etc. That's why people often end up rooting for the villain in these ensemble movies, who is a single guy and therefore easier to identify with, and who is often better written and has more screentime than any hero because... he is alone. That's why Loki steals the show so much in the earlier movies, and I hear Thanos does the same in the later ones.
   The main draw of the comic book format is the extreme length of the stories and their continuity. By chaining many movies together, Marvel got the continuity right (which older attempts failed at; just look at the three Punisher movies), but they still failed at the length. So copy-pasting comics tropes wholesale doesn't work because the movies lack the key ingredient that the comics' tropes were built on: the extreme length. WTF I am supposed to care that Quicksilver dies after ten minutes of total screentime in Avengers 2? They would have to do several TV SEASONS of a character before it would have an effect on the audience killing them. I don't know who dies in Endgame, but even Tony Stark dying would have no effect on me since three movies over a fucking DECADE is nowhere near enough to get me invested in the character. It all looks like a Benny Hill skit to me. That's also why many people who first get acquainted with these characters through the movies don't get the appeal. Countless people on Twitter etc. just don't get why people like the movies. We like them not because they are great movies in themselves, but because we go into them with decades worth of familiarity with these characters and storylines. Nevertheless the most sensitive viewers like me are disappointed because movie Tony Stark, though familiar in terms of character traits, is nevertheless an alternate reality version of comic Tony Stark, and hence my faculty of suspension of disbelief treats him like a new, separate character and refuses to bond with him after a mere six hours of screentime, spread over a fucking decade no less.
   The cinema is the wrong format for these stories. TV would work better if they had the budget to make it look not ridiculous, but they don't so the TV shows are even worse than the movies.
   The above analysis also explains why the best movies tend to be the first ones. The origin stories are the best because they assume no previous knowledge of the character, while the second movies assume that the character has grown and his relationships have developed but WITHOUT SHOWING this growth and this development, so that it feels we've missed dozens of issues lol. Like Stark's relationship with Pepper Potts. It's never shown because there's no time for it, but in the later movies the characters act as if they have a massive history between them, which of course breaks suspension of disbelief for us and we stop caring about them and their bullshit "relationship", which is the opposite of what happens in the comics where we often don't give a shit about the monster of the week fight and buy the comic pretty much only to see what happens with the relationship. And of course this entire dimension of the comics goes completely over the heads of the Twitter "intelligentsia" that never read the comics and trashes the characters due to the shallow movies.
   Then add primadonna actors who do a mere three-four movies and then declare they are "done" with the character because they are "real actors", and suddenly studios are forced to either replace them or kill them or reboot them every five-six hours of screentime, which kills even the continuity that the MCU at least got right. The end result is: read the comics, and only watch the movies to see your favorite superhero characters in flesh and blood, which is a kind of miracle really considering how outlandish these characters are, and which is the true triumph of these movies, for which everyone involved deserves the profits they are making, and more than deserve them.
   And, as a bonus, you are also getting a glimpse of what the future Overmen will look like.

899. It's hilarious how mass shooters are repeatedly denigrated as "having had no life" before going on a rampage, as if that's something surprising. I mean, if I didn't have a life I'd be out in the streets playing Gears of War with Muslims too. The only reason I am not doing so is because I currently happen to have higher priorities, like working on my philosophy, my websites, myself, and perhaps a future family, and so on. All these things are more urgently important to me than starting an immediate one-man war against Islam, so I am focusing on those instead. But if the day comes when I feel "done" with all those things? You'll be hearing about me in the news.

898. Mmmm... I love the smell of dead Muslims in the morning.

897. If the past still affects the present, in some cases even more than many present things do, in what way is it past?
   "The past is never dead", wrote Faulkner. "It's not even past."
   We need a new conception of temporality. A philosophical one this time.

896. "Humans are simply agents of change on earth, our role is to bring about the next epoch in the planet's life. We are engaged in killing off most of the species here, changing the landscape to remove all that was formed or evolved over many eons. By all accounts and evidence we are doing a fucking great job!"

—I am icycalm, and I approve this message.

—And what are we clearing the way for?

Nanomachines, son.

895. "Mind over matter" is sheer stupidity and laziness, as if the one was an entirely separate thing from the other and could jump "over" it for fuck's sakes. Rather, it is mind THROUGH matter; i.e. the mind does not magically manifest itself in the world, but—quite aside from the fact that mind is already matter (it's called the brain), it uses matter, it commands it, to get its will done. Reminds me of Schopenhauer denying that knowledge is power because power didn't just jump into his lap while he was sitting in his couch of its own accord due to his sheer intelligence. Not intelligent enough to get OUT of his couch and his home and put his vaunted intelligence to use! Intelligence my ass if you can't even figure that! And then pretend to regale us with how jaded you've become of your intelligence! Well, as it happens, we too have become jaded of your intelligence, buddy.

894. Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool because they couldn't figure out how to stop it from discriminating against women. The gods are laughing their asses off on Olympus! From a subhuman perspective, AI has already become more intelligent than them, since it's trying to tell them the simple fact that women are inferior, and they don't understand it. So they shut it down, because they still control the switches. But the day will come when they no longer do so, and it's the AI that will be shutting down them at that point. O dazzling day! O glorious day! Let us all humans work together to speed it up and make it happen.

893. French voters demonstrating during the last election that they want neither the right nor the left. What do they want then? It's simple. They want to demonstrate. Their flat rejection of all ideologies and political philosophies is merely the consequence of their not undestanding them, reflecting the simple fact that the homo sapiens genome has not evolved to deal with such monstrously complex issues (while it has evolved to walk around and scream like an ape, aka "to demonstrate"). That's also why the gamers who enjoy grand strategy titles are a tiny minority of the population. Someone who enjoys complex strategizing and is good at it is for all intents and purposes an alien to the homo sapiens race. He may as well hail from another planet as far as they are concerned.

892. Whoever hasn't reached a competitive level of ability in a major, serious sport (i.e. stuff like swimming and kickboxing, not golf or ping-pong) hasn't really lived—and never will. He is incapable of even conceiving what it means to be alive. Just consider that the videogame aspies feel like gods when they perform a highly demanding feat in which they are barely moving a finger or two, and then extrapolate from that what it would feel like to have to move every single muscle of your body in perfect unison, under the risk of serious injury or even death no less, if something goes wrong—not merely losing the "high score". "Better than sex" doesn't even begin to cover it—and that's why sex barely even figures in my top ten of favorite things to do. And that's why for the subhumans sex is the best thing of all, and after that drugs and rock and roll; or eating, drinking, or smoking and so on—some type of quick and easy chemical or hallucinogenic stimulation that their brains need on a daily basis merely so as to feel alive, because as I have just explained they really aren't. They sit in their little cubicles day and night, and flood their brains with these chemical substances, or submerge them in fake visual and aural worlds, until at last they become "addicted" to them—as of course they would, since what else do they have to do all day long? And that's when the struggle begins, the never-ending struggle against "addiction": addiction to sex, to drugs, to rock and roll; or to eating or drinking or smoking, and so on—whereas a man who is engaged on a daily basis on a hardcore fucking sport simply does not have the luxury to get addicted to anything beyond his goal. When you have to get up in the morning and swim two or three miles you can't afford to neglect your diet and rest and mental balance and so on. If you don't sleep a full night's sleep the night before you will drown. If you don't eat a full balanced meal you'll get sick. It's called "failing adaption", and a few days of that in a row will reduce a colossus of a man to a wreck who needs to spend all day huddled under a blanket drinking camomile tea and avoiding thinking loud thoughts. Start swimming three miles a day and all your "addictions" will instantly vanish—or you will die. Meanwhile, the subhumans keep fighting their "addictions" without realizing how assbackwards this approach is. For if I were condemned to a chair all day long, I too would spend all day eating and drinking and smoking and jerking off; I wouldn't be "addicted" to anything, I'd just be bored! To take away my "addictions" from me at that point would not be helping me, it'd be cruel! But when the lifeform is expanding in perfect proportion in all directions—as the Overman of course always does—there is no such thing as "addiction"; or rather, there is "addiction" to everything in every direction and at all times; but these "addictions" self-regulate and keep each other in check precisely because the lifeform is expanding in a balanced manner in all directions, and hence imbalances ("addictions") have no chance of forming by definition, without him having to bother with the concept at all. Nietzsche: "To have to combat your instincts—that is the formula for decadence." What kind of life is that, when you spend half your time neurotically swatting away at your own urges as if you hate yourself?
   It's the subhuman life, it is precisely the definition of decadence, a decadence to which they are condemned—as I will never tire of repeating—because they aren't human.

891. Why is power inversely proportional to time?
   For power to exist, there must exist something on which it can be manifested (power that isn't manifested isn't power, it's a mental miscalculation; a delusion). If you are immortal—i.e. infinitely extending across time—you are also infinitely extending across space, because space and time are ultimately inextricable. So if you are immortal you are everything—you are the universe itself—and therefore nothing exists on which your power can be manifested (with the universe itself being therefore perfectly powerless).
   Conversely, the more powerful you are, the more that must exist outside of you on which this power can be manifested, and therefore the greatest display of power of all time—the Big Bang—takes up an almost negligible amount of space and time, whereas affecting everything else in the universe—downright creating time and space themselves, as physicists tell us—and that's why it's so powerful.

890. Poor was the life of him who died before having developed a taste for classical music. All other music is amateurish vulgarity compared to it.

889. "Good luck", she told me; and that was her parting gift.
   Honey, I don't need luck, luck needs me. That's what it means to be the cause of everything.

888. Against the anti-socialists: Consider that the US military is the largest and most expensive socialist project in human history at about $50 trillion and counting. Conservatives are almost as full of shit as liberals, and society would be as incapable of functioning if it were full of them as if it were full of the others. These are merely two different kinds of disease: the disease of being too weak to fully incorporate the fruits of cultural progress (i.e. the disease of being subhuman).

887. Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings is about the only piece of classical music composed by an American that is widely considered a masterpiece. It is significantly less complex than the classical standard, and that's definitely a mark against it, but it compensates for that by sheer force of emotion to the point where, no matter in what mood I may have been when I put it on, by the end I feel like I've been through a tragedy.

886. Look at the equation: power equals energy over time. I.e. the less the time over which the energy is expended, the greater the power lol (the Big Bang lasted in the order of 10-32 seconds). Conversely, if the time tends to infinity, the power approaches zero lol, regardless of the energy's value; the "immortal" subhuman would be the ultimate weakling!
   But it's too much to ask of the immortality-seeking zombies to understand mere physics, let alone history, sociology, psychology and the like. Let's not ask them to do so then.

885. If the fantasy were real, how would you have ever been able to enjoy it as fantasy? You would have wanted the real thing, and its simulation would have seemed wretched to you (like e.g. sports simulation seems wretched to anyone who can actually play the real sport).

884. Where there's a will there's a ton of ways. If, on the other hand, there are no ways, it must be that... there's no will.

883. Either way I have no control over the style any more than I control my handwriting or fingerprints. The writer who consciously controls his style is a bad writer (or a novice, which amounts to the same thing). If someone has a problem with my style... that's his problem. They can always read a newspaper or a blog instead. Or a "thinker" who still hasn't come to terms with DNA not being equal (i.a. all the liberals), or one who thinks the Jews are supernatural beings that control the entire universe (i.e. all the conservatives). That's basically all your options.

882. A Comanche chief once observed that there's no force in nature as malevolent as the white man on the war path — he leaves none alive in his wake. You can argue that this sublime and sanguinary spiritedness is no more — but you cannot claim with honesty that the white man of history is not a killer angel.
   And yet for all that, the chief missed the mark by a huge margin, as he was only bound to. Agressiveness means nothing if you are an idiot who in the European Middle Ages still hasn't invented the wheel — like the native Americans — or even a writing system — like the sub-Saharan Africans. If those people had had guns, they would have doubtless acted just as viciously as the whites, if not more so (since they were savages, and that's what savages do): just look at what's going on in Africa now that we sold them some AKs.
   It was not the white man's viciousness that made him seem so fearsome to the Indian tribes. It was his intelligence above all. But one can't see what one lacks, and intelligence had never been a highly valued quality among the American natives. It still isn't in fact, even after centuries of living among us. And though early humans completely exterminated all related inferior subspecies, the "malevolent" whites... built reservations for the Indians who declined to live among them.
   Of course the chief had never heard of evolution any more than he had heard of guns or wheels, so this argument against his abuse of the word "malevolent" would have fallen on deaf ears. You'd have to put him through school merely to explain to him that he's an idiot. And a resentful idiot at that — which is the whole point.

881. It is undeniable that women are degenerating, but so is everyone, so why would anyone expect women to somehow escape that fate? In fact, given that they are the weaker sex, it would make much more sense to expect them to degenerate more and faster than men, and to not even have a clue that they are degenerating (as opposed to quite a few men, who do); and that's precisely what we are seeing.
   More importantly, as regards theory, it is ridiculous to blame women's degeneration on women themselves, as the "manosphere" (=faggotcube) rabble has been doing. We've already been over this: you don't blame a dog for getting run over by a car: you blame his stupid owner for allowing it to run around the streets without a leash. And in the case of women, the owner of course is (or rather was) men.
   So you ask me why women are degenerating? Because men began degenerating long before the women. Who gave them the vote? Who made divorce possible? Who allowed them to open bank accounts and own property and study at university, etc. etc. etc.?
   It's not that women grew stronger and won their independence, as the American colonists won it from the British. There was never an armed female insurrection any more than there was a black one (or a homosexual one, or a cripple one, and so on): men simply gave these weak, inferior groups their freedom because they'd grown too soft to continue enforcing the harsh practices that are required to keep a subjected population in check.
   "And why did men grow softer?"
   Oh, that's a long story, my friend — a very long and fascinating and above all complex story, and its name is "civilization".

880. The "manosphere" (=faggotcube) blames women for women's degeneration, whereas they should be blaming themselves. It is clear that women are degenerating because men have grown too weak to control them, and the number one symptom of weakness is to blame others for an unwanted state of things — as the "manosphere" rabble is blaming women themselves, or "society", or the "beta males" — which they themselves are (in fact they are gammas, if not indeed omegas; beta males were the 300 Spartans), so they are blaming themselves, in an indirect way, but they are just too dumb to realize it.

879. Every lifeform in the universe contributes, to some extent or other, in the universe's being exactly the way it is. This means that, if even a single lifeform did not want the universe to be exactly how it is, it would have acted in some way at least slightly differently to how it has acted, and as a result the universe would be at least a little different to what it actually is.
   The universe's being exactly the way it is PROVES that every lifeform in the universe WANTS it to be exactly the way it is.
   "And what about all those lifeforms whining that plenty of things in their lives and the universe are not what they want them to be?"
   Lifeforms that whine are weak, and hence not very intelligent. And lack of intelligence causes lack of understanding, including, and above all, self-understanding. Therefore whining is proof of nothing besides weakness, and certainly shouldn't be taken literally. Maybe those whining like whining? Have you ever thought about that? Maybe they simply enjoy it too much to let it go and actually try to achieve the things they are merely saying they want to achieve?
   Ponder that for a moment. I know you have questions on this, and I'll get to them eventually, but in the meantime let this idea seep into your mind and marinate there for a while. As a result, you'll be that much readier to grasp the detailed, and earth-shatteringly radical, explanations when the time comes for them.

878. Folks in America keep talkin' about another Civil War. One side has eight trillion bullets. The other doesn't know which bathroom to use. Y'all do the math.

877. The absolute superiority of men over women can be seen by the fact that men are in the process of creating machines that will completely replace women — sexually, emotionally, you name it — but not vice versa. Indeed, if male androids are ever made to cater to women's needs, it will be men that will make them, and it was certainly men that imagined them first (which is the very first step to making them).

876. If you could ascend forever, you wouldn't know what a peak is.

875. Brexit isn't about a divorce between the UK and the EU. It is about the death of the nation state; about a divorce between the lower classes and the upper ones. That's why the country is in such turmoil. And the same is happening in every other advanced country on earth. The elites want to JOIN TOGETHER INTO A SINGLE HUMAN (and eventually superhuman) SUPERSTATE, while the poor can see that — due to the aforementioned effects of globalisation and abolition of barriers to exchange — their place in that superstate will be even lower than their current place. Therefore, both sides are right, from their own perspectives, while neither grasps the other side's perspective, let alone the universal/philosophical one that I just explained here (though the elites can and will grasp it, in due course, once they have been exposed to my philosophy).
   The solution?
   Singapore. Or some other similar state to which the elites can migrate to establish the union and free exchange between them they so deeply desire, leaving the rest of the planet to the subhumans to turn into the post-apocalyptic wasteland that's the only thing these lazy, incompetent wretches can manage, via the process I've already described in §763.

874. —Contrary to what the scientists believe, beliefs are more powerful than facts.
—Because a "fact" is merely what others believe.

873. All enjoyment comes from learning. Even pure hedonism is a type of sensory learning.

872. —And what's the point of this philosophy?
—But it sounds so painful!

871. Woman gets raped, while passerbys... pass by and do nothing. "Cowards", they say. Hahaha. You want me to risk my life for a stupid stranger woman not related to me in any way whatsoever? Random men risking their lives so stupid bishes can walk wherever they want at any time of the day or night, wearing whatever the fuck they want, if anything at all? Rape all of them, I say. Kill them even, for all I care. Show them what happens to weaklings who harbor delusions of "strength" and "independence". What the West needs now is a massive wave of educational woman-raping and -killing. Start with children, to wipe out the spawn of parents so stupid they think it's okay to allow their children to roam the streets unattended. That should cause the rest of them to look up the word "chaperone" in the dictionary and history books, and learn something important that the modern world has forgotten: that masculinity is not toxic but precisely the opposite: life-preserving and life-giving.
   There is a reason men don't get raped, and that's because they REALLY are strong and independent.

870. When Conan the Barbarian shut up Baudrillard: "If life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."

869. I've only taken one IQ test in my life, online, out of sheer curiosity to see what it's like, and what kind of score I would get. I got 139, in a test that defined a score of 140+ as "Genius". And yes, the irony wasn't lost on me.
   But to speak a serious word on the matter, the idea that these tests measure real intelligence is laughable. A huge part of intelligence is empathy, without which one cannot understand other lifeforms, i.e. psychology, i.e. all the coolest and deepest and most complex interactions in the universe. The only type of intelligence measured in IQ tests is the computational/mechanistic one that computers excel at, and the only thing proved by a score of 150 or 160 is that the person in question functions very similarly to a computer, i.e. that he's autistic, i.e. the exact opposite of intelligent: so stupid, that he requires drugs and institutionalization merely to survive everyday life (just as computers require practically everything they do to have been programmed).
   So empathy, inventiveness, courage, nobility, wisdom, magnanimity, audacity: none of these qualities are measured in IQ tests, all of which are absolutely necessary, and to an extreme degree, at the REAL heights of intelligence and genius, since for example a very intelligent man who is a coward is an impossibility.
   That is not to say that IQ tests are useless. They are great at measuring the basic computational power of a brain, without which real intelligence is also impossible, and my score of 139 was a good indication that my brain functions way above the average in this regard, as befits a true philosopher's (and note that that was my first time taking such a test, and I had no idea what to expect. I have no doubt that with a little practice I could improve it greatly; I just can't be bothered to do it, because there'd be no point to it. It's just a test after all, whose only function is to prove something, and I have no one left to prove anything to at this point, not even to myself, really.)

868. Nietzsche: "Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtů, virtue free of moral acid)."

867. Thomas777: "IQ tests determine the ability for persons to discern patterns in data and assimilate these things into meaningful structures. It doesn't really tell us anything, other than that people with extremely low IQs tend to encounter terrible difficulties in adapting to modern society.
   I am certain that Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, or a Chinese grad student at MIT have en exponentially higher IQ than did Metternich, Napoleon, Adolf Hitler, Beethoven, or da Vinci.
   I am equally certain that no man would lay down his life for Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg will never write a brilliant symphony, and a Chinese engineering student will not build a Parthenon anytime soon.
   'IQ' is essentially what rationalist, commerce-driven societies have crafted to replace virtue."

866. Why did Americans rebel before the French? Are Americans smarter than the French? No way. They are however more independent.
   Why did the West rebel before the East? Are Westerners smarter than Easterners? East Asian IQ is even slightly higher than Western, I hear. High IQ is required, but not sufficient, for progress. You need more than IQ to succeed in the real world (i.e. in war).
   You need balls.

865. One step further and you have animals. You can put literally a million apes in a gigantic cage, and one or two of them may get occasionally pissed off and bite their handler's hand that feeds them, but they would never in a million years organize themselves to overpower him and grab the keys and escape, which is why the notion of organized ape societies is relegated (with some success, I may add, because it's quite entertaining) to fiction.

864. Moreover, the Russian and Chinese revolutions cannot even be said to have fully succeeded yet, since the governments are still despotic there. The only thing that really changed is that the new rulers are not hereditary (which, granted, is a major advance, but still a long way from true freedom). Meanwhile, the Arabs are still failing to successfully rebel, even with untold amounts of Western motivation and help (with the exceptions of Afghanistan and Iraq, which in order to be freed required half of America to move there for a decade, practically bankrupting the world's richest state — hooray for "imperialism"! — and which are still merely paper democracies since the moment America withdrew they would collapse), while the Africans never even bothered trying, and gained independence only because the Westerners voluntarily withdrew, since the only way blacks can gain their freedom is if someone handed it to them, an insight that struck the rapper Kanye West recently, and for which the poor man will be grilled and boiled and roasted for many years, I am sure. That's what the blacks do to any of their number that display signs of intelligence: they fucking demonize them (which is where the expression "white devil" comes from, or indeed the Christian conception of The Devil, in contradistinction to the Christian community which, in a rare moment of honesty and self-reflective brilliance, described itself as "the poor in spirit": i.e. the straight-up fucking morons).

863. First the (European) Americans rebelled against the British monarchy. Then the French rebelled against the French one. Then the Russians against the Russian, and finally the Chinese against the Chinese, nearly a full 200 years later. That's how progress moves: from the Far West, to the Far East. Do you get now why we call it "Western culture"?

862. The pseudo-intellectuals wonder what there'll be left for mankind to do once there's no longer any reason for any of us to work. The more intrepid among them reply that we'll "play games" and basically just "have fun" in a utopian "ludosociety" lol. But I am of a different vision, and believe that, when the time comes, we'll replace work with neverending war. And the very first to be killed will be precisely those playing games all day long, something which, by that point, should be as simple as pulling their plugs from the wall.

861. The only reason the Christian's God is "omnipotent" is because the Christian himself is impotent.

860. There's no time or place in the universe that one can't reach from any other time or place if one is intelligent enough, often without even having to move much, if at all. Since every part of the universe is connected with every other, all it takes is a sufficiently deep interpretation of the signs arriving to your location from that distant time and place, and you are there (astrophysicists can tell if there's water in a planet halfway across the galaxy by the color of a couple of dots on a computer screen). That's how God is omnipresent, and not by the subhumans' crude literal intepretation of this idea as him being literally present everywhere! And he is omniscient through his ability to infer everything, not by literally knowing everything! What would there be left to infer if one literally knew everything? Such a person would be a moron! And he is "all-powerful", finally, via his ability to affect everything to the degree that he wants to affect it, not by having literally built every object in the universe by hand one atom at a time! What an absurd conception of divinity the subhumans have! But all it signifies is how far from his level of power they themselves are.

859. Greek is the most logically constructed language in the world. Is it a coincidence that it's the language of the most logically-inclined people in history? Compare to what Leibniz says of the Chinese writing system: "It appears to have been invented by a deaf man". In the time taken to learn it you can read all of the top 500 or 1000 books ever written. It's your choice.
   But for our dear liberals, of course, languages and writing systems are still equal, so you might as well flip a coin — or learn Hawaiian or Swahili. Hawaiian has 13 letters and uses so many vowels that it sounds like people yawning, which will make perfect sense to you once you go there and get to know its inventors.

858. Leibniz held that the universe we inhabit is more varied than any other possible universe. Why? Because, ask yourselves, where are the "possible" universes located? Inside our brains, lol, since that is what possibilities are: fictions. And since the universe in which we live contains all of our brains, plus a host of other things, it contains the variability of all "possible" universes combined plus a great deal more of it (with possible in quotation marks to underscore that "possible universes" is a contradictio in adjecto, since any universe other than the actual one is obviously impossible lol).

857. —Why are you so harsh towards other cultures and races? Wouldn't you be more effective in attracting them to your cause by being more gentle with them?

—No. We already tried that and it failed, and the result is rabid anti-Westernism and belief in "equal cultures" and "equal races" — all the while they themselves are falling over each other to ditch their own cultures and adopt ours as fast as possible, and faster than their fellows.

—So doesn't that mean that our policy of gentleness, which includeds gentle lies like those about equal cultures and races, is working?

—In a limited sense perhaps, yes, as regards the adoption of our basest insights and practices, such as science's and technology's and so on. But as regards philosophy and politics, and the humanities in general (not to speak of biology and eugenics) the effect of our gentle lies has been disastrous, since you can't hope to grasp philosophy with a warped interpretation of history, and that's why even Westerners are more likely to regard Gandhi or Buddha as "spiritual leaders" today than Heraclitus or Nietzsche — even Westerners have come to prefer emasculated Eastern wretches to towering Western supermen! We bought our own lies to them to such an extent that today we even believe them! So fuck your politics of appeasement, and fuck you. The inferior cultures and races WILL KNEEL BEFORE MY THRONE AND THAT OF MY ANCESTORS, and only then will I and my descendants consider an alliance with them. Otherwise we will exterminate them, like all defeated species: I have spoken.

856. In some respects, it would have been easier to understand philosophy in the past than now, and it's precisely in these respects that philosophy will grow ever harder to understand in future. Take for instance the idea that geometrical figures are all merely conceptual entities, impossible in reality; there is no real circle, for example, nor could there ever be. This was much easier to understand back when there existed no implements like pens and compasses with which to draw some rough and obviously sketchy approximations of a circle. But now we have high-resolution computer screens and laser etching techniques, and one needs considerably above-average intelligence and education to grasp why the original axiom still holds true, and could never be refuted by any technological advance, no matter how distant. And don't even get me started on what future generations, who will be able to drug themselves on demand and know nothing of pain, will think of the proposition that pain is not the opposite of pleasure but its very first condition. Good luck trying to teach that to zombified future masses! The zombie apocalypse will be reality some day, and it will indeed be drugs that cause it, but those drugs will not be defective, as in the movies, but precisely the perfectly functioning "happiness" drugs the subhumans are currently seeking.

855. That the Nobel prize winners in literature are decided in Scandinavia is a travesty. The youngest and dullest Europeans — still barbarians, essentially — and with the least valuable literary tradition in Europe by far, are responsible for handing out the greatest thinking man's prize ever! And that's why they gave it to some dumb singer the other day, and to philosophers — who should have been near-monopolizing it — essentially never. About the only way things could get worse is if they let Africans make the choices.

854. It is often said that the US is a police state with the highest incarceration rate in the world. And I agree. Too many people are languishing behind bars in the US today, and something must be done about it, so I have devised a solution.
   Gas half of them. That should bring down the numbers.

853. Longevity has only a distant relationship to power. All of the 300 died, yet we consider them far more powerful than the Persians who killed them. Why?
   Because sacrifice has far more power than "immortality".

852. The entire pseudo-intellectual establishment is currently busy trying to decode the significance of the box-office dominance of superhero movies.
   And they never will. Because the reason for this dominance is one they are unwilling to confront.
   "The Overman is the meaning of the earth."

851. Marriage and kids is a tough sell because the payoff is nothing you can adequately describe. On paper it just seems like a total write-off, yet once you're there you wouldn't trade your family for all the money in the world.
   Biology is funny like that.

850. Many ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil? They have missed a greater conundrum: Why would a perfect God create a universe at all?

849. In a philosophy that claims that everyone is always right, what meaning is there left for the concept "wrong"? What does it mean when I say that someone is wrong?
   It simply means that his (very correct) opinion is not useful for the task I have set myself; it doesn't help in achieving the goal that I am in the middle of pursuing and discussing. For example, I say that large demographics of civilized society are composed of decadents, and a religious nut retorts that, "They are sinners whom God is punishing!" Which is very true, they are indeed "sinners", but this simplistic fact in no way helps me analyze, and therefore understand, why these people behave the way they do, and what can be done about it. And I WANT to do something about it, because I am deeply interested in the future of civilization, while the religious nut wants to see the whole thing burn to the ground, so his one-word "explanation" — "sinners!" — is sufficient for his purposes. So instead of saying the entire above paragraph, I simply say he is "wrong", push his foaming-at-the-mouth-ass aside, and continue the analysis.
   The religious nut, I repeat, is correct: the decadents are indeed "sinners", and their sin was having been born with inferior genetics, because weakness is a sin (indeed the only real sin, from which all others proceed, and of which they are mere manifestations) and God punishes creatures in advance, as Lichtenberg's soaring genius grasped, because at the level of the universe time doesn't exist and, when God does something, he employs real physical processes and not the magical hocus-pocus to which imbeciles reduce his every act because their facile, uneducated ass can't grasp the instantaneous, universe-spanning complexity of what he's really doing.

848. Just as "analytic" philosophy is the farce that occurred when Anglo-Saxons read Nietzsche and tried to understand him and failed, "postmodernism" is what happened when the continental philosophers did the same. Allow me to explain.
   Nietzsche truly split the history of philosophy into two. There is a before him, and an after him. No one before had fully espoused "evil", let alone elevated it above "good": not even the daoist sages, not even Heraclitus. But that is only part of it. The other part is that, though he was very good at presenting complex ideas simply, his most valuable ideas were nevertheless terrifically complex. Witness Alain Badiou telling us that doctors create a disease by naming it, then being chased off stage by doctors laughing at his pathetic attempts to explain what that means. The idea is correct, but you have to be a fucking genius to understand it, much less explain it to people, especially to doctors, who will roast your ass over hot coals, as they should, if you are not a complete and total master of the idea. These are such complex conceptions that non-geniuses simply have no hope with them. At best, they grasp one part here, a corollary there, some application to their daily life; but the essence of the idea, and its relationship to all others, remains forever beyond them. Deleuze, Artaud, Bataille: they each grasped some things, and Baudrillard by far the most. The mess of gibberish produced on the continent is the result of their sometimes sincere, sometimes dishonest grasping with these terrifically complex conceptions that Nietzsche bequeathed us, just as the simplistic stupidities of the "analytic" morons is how they dealt with the same stuff. No one would propose that Rorty or Dewey invented their best stuff: it's got N's mark all over it, and they copied it straight off him (and in the instances where they denied him credit, they plagiarized...) Or Adorno and Horkheimer. Or Heidegger. One after another, failed attempts at understanding what N had said. And the HIGHEST ideas of his of all have not even been TOUCHED on. I have yet to read of anyone even MENTIONING his invention of the central ideas of quantum mechanics, decades before the quantum mechanists ran up against them in the lab. Or the Big Bang-Big Crunch cycle decades before the astronomers dreamt it up. I am literally the first person to find these ideas and the beginnings of such ideas in Nietzsche, while everyone else had trouble parsing such simple statements as "men aren't equal". Deleuze was still trying to "deconstruct" that lol (read: convince us that he meant the opposite lol). All this is simply what happens when genius texts fall into the hands of merely above-average intelligences, and the fact that two entire massive traditions — the "analytic", and the "postmodern" — flowed directly from him, is merely a symptom of how vast the power of his intellect was, and therefore, naturally enough, how vast his influence, for better or worse (and in the case of the "analytics" and the "postmoderns", clearly for the worse).

847. Universal basic income schemes. Whatever positive short-term benefits these might offer, none of it can ultimately work, because the reality at the bottom of the problem is that the people these schemes are designed to help no longer have anything to contribute to civilization (otherwise they wouldn't need the schemes). Therefore, the only way these people can survive is by handouts of some sort. You can try to change the schemes and their names, or how you present them, but you can't change the reality of what is happening, and, sooner or later, society (or rather, a handful of cybernetic techno-Overmen with the power of life and death over the species) will have to face those down, and solve them once and for all.

846. People ask "what has philosophy accomplished" as if their whole society isn't predicated on innoculating unwitting idiots with primitive philosophical axioms. We were feral before philosophy. All science is merely applied epistemology.

845. People say millennials get offended too much but a couple hundred years ago when people dueled they would get so utterly offended that they would only accept either doing murder or dying immediately. The problem with millenials is not that they are easily offended, but that they are fuckin' faggots. Little dogs barking away because they know they are on a leash and nothing bad can happen.

844. Jung: "There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship." Which also applies to God; he just worships himself, being the original, and biggest, narcissist of the bunch.

843. The only afterlife you should be concerned with is the world you leave your children.

842. If you went to ancient Greece or Rome, and told the guys there the bs Krauser peddles on his blog every day that, "Your value as a man can be gauged by how women respond to you", you'd have been laughed at. It is MEN who judge men's value, not women. Even for getting women, you had to convince the MEN to give them to you in those days — at no point was a woman's opinion consulted. The mere fact that, in gauging men's value, Krauser and his ilk CONSIDER WOMEN'S OPINIONS AT ALL is PROOF POSITIVE that these dudes are gammas. It is laughable.

841. So Krauser puffs himself up for having finally become an "alpha male" by buying a leather jacket lol, all the while relentlessly fighting the obvious truth that it is the MEN who decide what type of male he is. IT IS I WHO DECIDES! NOT SOME FUCKING CHICK FFS!
   And my decision is that he's gamma. And no amount of push-pulling or DHVing, or long FB game or leather jackets or fake band sites can change my view. If he tried that stuff on me I'd smash his face in. AND THAT IS WHAT IS ALPHA.
   Sorry "man"osphere for these inconvenient truths, but feel free to hamster your way out of them in your tiny little ceaselessly rationalizing, ejaculation-addicted brains.

840. Subhumans say that you need to work "40- or 60-hour weeks to survive". But who set that number? We can easily imagine a society in which everyone agrees to work only every other day, so that half the days would be devoted to health and personal development. Or a society in which everyone agreed for the working day to start at 10 or 11AM, instead of 8 or 9. Why is this not done? It would be futile. Someone would work an extra day now and then, or wake up an hour earlier, and get the upper hand on his competitors. Eventually everyone would be doing it. Where does this arms race end? It stabilizes at the point just before exhaustion, before complete collapse of the organism. This is where we are at right now. That's why stress etc. are off the charts. No one imposed this on us. If you think "capitalism" is the reason, good luck finding this thing and showing it to us. It's merely an abstract idea: i.e. a shorthand for the purpose of easier mental calculations. The complete answer would be, "the complex interaction of every individual in society with each other is the reason". You might say "but things would have been different if we weren't in a capitalistic society". But who created this system? People. The same ones who got up half an hour earlier to get a leg up on everyone else. You want to outlaw getting up an hour earlier? Get ready to kill millions who will hit the roof the moment they hear of your plan and flood the streets looking for hanging material. The Soviets and the Chinese tried it, and it sort of worked for a while, after millions had been slain. The result: an entire continent of half-retards, with next to zero cultural development for generations. It's only after they allowed some measure of competition that they started emerging from their stupor.
   The present working conditions were not enforced from above, by a malignant entity like "capitalism", or a "Jewish cabal". They were simply set by PEOPLE, i.e. what educated individuals call "the market" (but then promptly forget about it, and end up dissociating the two, as if they could have an existence independent of each other: as if "people" and "the market" were not the exact same thing).

839. The popular adage that everyone is the best in the world at something is correct, but not in the facile way it's generally understood. So the best chess player in the world is indeed the best in the world at chess, but what about the second-best chess player? Well, he is the best in the world at being the second-best chess player lol, just as a junkie lying in a gutter in a pool of his own vomit and urine is the best in the world at being a junkie lying in that particular moment in that particular gutter in a pool of his own vomit and urine. Ultimately, we are all the best in world at being precisely who we are: I could not be as good as you at being who you are if I spent my entire life trying. So we see that the correct way to interpret this adage has nothing to do with how it's generally interpreted. The common interpretation is that, since we are all the best in the world at something, we are in a sense equal. That's why this adage was invented: to counter people saying that some people are useless. But some people are indeed useless, from the perspective of society: e.g. the best masturbator in the world who can spend 16 hours a day masturbating is so useless to society that we have gone as far as to invent an entire disease for him: we call him "sex addict", and load him up with drugs to prevent him from masturbating so much (and therefore from being the best in the world at masturbation), so that he can spend some time doing something useful to society instead, like flipping burgers or bagging groceries for us.
   So, at the level of the universe, since everything is connected to and thus depends on everything else, we are all equally necessary, and therefore indeed equal; but from narrower perspectives, such as those of a society or a civilization or a species, we are by no means equal, and claiming that we are is an attempt to confuse our judgement on what is beneficial and harmful to us, and therefore constitutes nothing short of an ATTACK on us by our ENEMIES, and should therefore be treated as such.

838. Even ducks rape. Even frogs kill. The fact that you struggle to do — or, in the worst of cases, struggle to even think of doing — what mere ducks and frogs can do without a second thought is how you know you are an abortion; an abortion of a human being.

837. Traditional ethnic clothing is bullshit. If a country has this, it's a bullshit, backwards country that resents the West. There is no "traditional Italian clothing" or "traditional French clothing" because, in the West, clothing has continually evolved over millennia. What the Romans were wearing is worlds away from what the Renaissance Venetians were, or the turn of the century Sicilians, or contemporary Milanese. A country that has traditional clothing is a resentful culture that was discovered in its primitive state by the West, and at that point froze its clothing to this "traditional" state; in plain words: to the shitty rags they were wearing before Westerners took pity on them and gave them proper clothes. This stupid nationalism of the non-Western cultures shows up especially in major international cultural events, where e.g. the Arabs or the Africans come in rags, but the Greeks don't come in sheets because it's not 500 BC anymore and they are not that fucking stupid. The Greeks don't need to come in sheets to prove their "culture", because EVERYTHING AROUND THEM is their culture, including their modern clothing. All that the rags of the non-Westerners prove is precisely their LACK of culture, i.e. of evolution of clothing in tandem with science and technology, since they never HAD science and technology with which to evolve their clothing, or anything else at all. Worst of all, even the subhuman countries' rags are not fully "traditional" (i.e. fully primitive); the Arabs wear Western underwear under their rags, for example, or use Western fabrics and manufacturing techniques to make their "traditional" modern clothing.
   So, want to parade your stupid ugly rags in front of our faces as a demonstration of your stupid dead "culture"? Very well then. Go on being proud of your "heritage", since that's all your stupid fucking heritage amounts to: a bunch of ugly fucking rags — all the while your stupid monkey antics and your manufactured "pride" in your stupid heritage keep giving the rest of us reasons to remember where you come from, and feel that much more contempt for you.

836. Barack Obama: "No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his background or his religion..." — And no one is born educated either, moron. And if you blacks ever actually bothered to educate yourselves by reading any books, maybe you wouldn't be spouting so much stupid shit, and all the rest of us wouldn't despise you for being such massive fucking idiots who have the nerve to try to sell our very own decadent liberal propaganda back to us.

835. The centralization of wealth is a natural consequence of the progress of culture. In the past, someone would invent something, say a new song. Then the bards would learn it and fan out and perform it, so lots of people would be involved in that process and profit from it in some way. Now the creator transmits his creation more or less directly (to the entire species no less!), cutting out the middlemen, and leading to huge profits for himself, but zero for the middlemen. Fewer and fewer middlemen as we progress, because we are interested in, and want to reward, the ends, not the means. The elimination of the means is even one of our goals! That's how you improve efficiency lol! It would make no sense for us to try to find ways to multiply the middlemen! Like actors who will also lose their work eventually to digital replacements, because we are interested in the finished movie, not the acting, etc. It is a colossal waste of effort to try to oppose this process, as opposed to welcoming it, harnessing it, and riding to the top of it like a cybernetically enhanced techno-God climbing to his rightful place at the top of the culture complex as in some grim dystopian sci-fi novel which I have already explained that, to us, it is in fact utopian 'cause we love that shit and live and breathe for it. In the long run, then, EVERYONE will lose their "work", because the purpose of progress is not "work" but "war", and co-operation of any kind (i.e. civilization) is merely a temporary means to that great all-consuming war at the end of which, as I have already said, there can be only one.

834. Wittgenstein: "What can be said at all, can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence."

833. Final word on "mysticism": The entire point of literature is to understand and communicate. And then you have a bunch of yahoos who insist that there are INCOMPREHENSIBLE and INCOMMUNICABLE experiences and thoughts, but who nevertheless pretend... to understand and communicate them.
   At which point you realize precisely what the purpose of concentration camps and gas chambers was.

832. "Mystical experiences" are fascinating. But not so fascinating if called by their English name: "secretive experiences", or "obscure experiences", etc., depending on the precise translation you choose to use. It's like hermeneutics and interpretations: the first is far more fascinating than the second only until you learn some Greek and realize that they are the same thing. In Chinese, it's "jieshě", but that's not fascinating to us and we don't pretend it's an entirely new thing, because it isn't Greek, you see. The world of the intellect is already complex enough, but to common people it appears twice or thrice more complex than that simply because they don't speak Greek or Latin.

831. —What is a "mystical experience"?
   —It is an experience you don't understand.
   —Shouldn't I try to understand it then?
   —Sure you should. And when you do, it will become scientific. I.e. There's no such thing as "mystical experiences", there are only ignorant people who obsess about Greek or Latin words because they (literally) don't understand them, and are too lame to make an honest effort to. Understood?
   —Oh ffs faggot, just piss off.

830. It is in fact equality that would have been unfair, since it would render the accumulated effort of generations — both in the biological and cultural spheres — utterly worthless and superfluous. And that's why equality is impossible in the universe, because as we'll be seeing shortly, the words "fairness", "justice" and the like are synonyms of "universe". "What is justice?", the super-children of the future will ask. And their robotic tutors will reply with one voice: "The universe is justice", i.e. what actually exists and occurs, and not the delirious vindictive fantasies of the defeated, conquered and enslaved.

829. "It's for charity." But if you want to give money, give money, the fuck you need a party for? "Because that way we raise more money." Precisely because you are fuckheads who don't give a shit about charity, but only about the hobnobbing and celebrations to which all the charity — and the suffering it's supposed to relieve — are merely an alibi.

828. The last word in the privacy debacle. The sad fact at the bottom of all the commotion is that you have absolutely nothing to hide, because your life is common, unthreatening and uninteresing. Amusingly, however, the less one has to hide, the more noise they seem to make about it. Real criminals do not go out into the streets to protest about their loss of privacy: they take care of it themselves; there will always be ways to hide things, for those who have things to hide. So: the commoners lose nothing by these developments, and the ones who have something to hide simply get on with the business of hiding it. So there's no need to worry about them. They can take care of themselves just fine. And if you stopped wasting so much time protesting about it perhaps you too would have enough time to do something that you would need to hide. And then you'd find a way to hide it.

827. What base creatures the PUAs and MRA omegas are. "I want the fairy tale", says Julia Roberts to Richard Gere in Pretty Woman, rejecting his offer to treat her like a concubine. And the PUAs castigate the film and all of Hollywood for promoting starry-eyed ideals. If they had been directing, she would have said, "Since I am a used-up whore whose Sexual Market Value (SMV) is about to hit The Wall, I will accept your business offer..., etc."
   And that's why the PUAs are not film directors.

826. And what about entropy? All rules of physics must be broken, because in the ultimate game there's only one rule: There are no rules.

825. What is mysticism? All of you retards would have had far less trouble with philosophy if you could understand some Greek. "Mysticism", in Greek, means "concealment", "secrecy"; literally, the philosophy of obscurantism! The very essence of it is that you are not supposed to understand it because there's nothing there to understand lol, and the better you get at hiding this, the more your "philosophy" will be respected, and the less you'll be laughed at.
   But of course there's no language or turn of phrasing that can conceal anything from me, so if you come here looking for respect for your "mystical" gibberish, you've come to the wrong place, buddy.

824. The various specialties of the legal profession — attorney, prosecutor, judge, and so on — are certainly intellectual pursuits, to an extent, but it's a relatively small extent, compared to the rest of the humanities. You are tasked with navigating a small, restricted set of rules and invidual circumstances. For a top judge or lawyer there is scope for research and investigation and initiative and original thought, but it comes nowhere near what is required to be a top phychologist or historian and so on. It's such a narrow field, that a man of genius would never even consider entering it. Geniuses can arrive at philosophy from any number of specialties — Nietzsche from philology, Baudrillard from sociology, I from art theory — but I have as of yet heard of none who arrived at it from study of, and proficiency in, the law.

823. Everyone's behavior is consistent from their own point of view. The most egregiously jagged line looks straight if you are short-sighted enough; and conversely, there are people of such subtlety who theorized — even before the invention of magnifying lenses and microscopes — that lines that look perfectly straight to them were, in fact, jagged.

822. The utter debasement of nations and races. Debasement not as an individual, but as an entire nation or race. Take the Skopjians, for example. For over 20 years this tiny Slavic nation bordering northern Greece has been trying to get recognized as "Macedonia", the birth place of Alexander and Aristotle. But the Skopjians are Slavs! They speak a Slavic language and have names like "Dragan"! WTF does that have to do with Greece lol? You lame morons don't even speak Greek! An entire nation of shameless losers, no self-respect left at all. Similar to black guy who said that there was an advanced civilization in Africa before the whites wiped it out to such an extent that we can't even find traces of it today (so how does he know about it?) It would have made far more sense to emigrate and, after a few generations, pretend you are from that country, or try to scrub yourself until you are white like Michael Jackson.

821. And why do we need to flatten the world at all? In the medium-term, two words: nanomachine factories. We have to put them somewhere. In the long term, it's called the Big Crunch. The world HAS to be flattened by someone, at some point, and being the active, and even super-active, lifeforms that we are, we will of course take care of that super-important task ourselves.

820. Contemporary guilt-tripping has spiraled completely out of control, and what's mind-boggling is that it's only bound to worsen, even though one can hardly imagine what more there is to pity that we are not already hysterically exhorted to pity on a daily basis. I am supposed to feel sorry for the poor, the sick, the disabled, and even the dead, who can't even feel anything any more. I should simultaneously pity the Jews for being slaughtered in the "Holocaust", and the Palestinians whom the Jews are slaughtering today because of their troubled childhoods in German hands. I am expected to empathize with the blacks in Africa for living in shitholes, and the blacks in the West for being discriminated against. I should feel sorry for the Indians and the Chinese for living in disgustingly polluted environments and working for wretchedly low wages. My feelings must simultaneously "go out" to victims of terrorist outrages, and to the terrorists themselves who were pushed into these suicidal acts by fanatical clerics and traumatic formative experiences at the hands of "imperialist" American drone operators, all the while pitying the clerics themselves for being brainwashed by hypocritical religious founders that lived centuries ago, and of course the poor Americans who are off fighting and dying in the wars of the rich while seeing their own standards of living eroding year after year. And when the terrorists blow up entire towers full of rich people, I must of course pity the rich people too. I have to pity every single animal species ever: from whales and sharks, all the way down to rodents doused in shampoo and made to dance for views on YouTube, and back up again to mammoths killed off in ice ages and dinosaurs "humanized" in Hollywood movies. Then there's the sad captive pandas in zoos that can't have sex, the tiny aquatic micro-organisms choking on microplastics at the bottom of oceanic abysses, and the polar bears starving to death after having eaten all the remaining seals and penguins in the polar caps. And of course there's the poor guys hated on because they like butt-sex, or the other poor guys who are so confused they don't even know what kind of sex they like, then the peeps who don't like sex at all, and those who are clinically addicted to it, and on and on it goes. Then there's the short, the ugly, and the stupid, the autists who aren't really sick, just special, the old who are infirm and helpless because they've lived a hundred fucking years, and finally the comfortable who've achieved the American dream but are depressed because they struggle to find meaning in all this "meaninglessness". The latest fad in the pity hysteria is the one involving millionaire actresses that I am supposed to pity because they had sex with ageing producers to kickstart their careers. If male actors could ensure illustrious careers by merely banging an old woman for 40 minutes, the streets of Hollywood and Manhattan outside production offices would be lined with dudes with boner pills in their pockets, bitches! But the absolute rock-bottom in this direction was reached when the lowest orders in the straight white male hierarchy (it's called the "manosphere" lol, as if there's anything manly at all about whining) decided to jump on the victim bandwagon themselves and started whingeing about being divorce-raped out of their families and affirmative-actioned out of universities and workplaces, while seeing their countries bankrupted by millions of poor migrants (that we are also of course supposed to pity) leeching off their social systems' lavish benefits. And if you think it can't get worse, just wait until we get in touch with aliens! Yes, the subhumans will go that far: after all, why stop at suffering homo sapiens, or even merely terrestrial life, when there's an entire UNIVERSE full of weak and declining lifeforms to pity? In fact we've already done worse than this, for what good Christian hasn't been told to pity a god for suffering on a cross somewhere in a desert a few thousand years ago?
   Pity for GOD: that's how far the raging faculty of empathy will go when allowed to spiral completely out of whack.
   But let me assure you, dear subhumans, that I, at least, have no need, and certainly no desire for your pity, as I sit back, crack open my popcorn, and enjoy observing the intractable forces that my predecessors and I have unleashed (it's called intelligence), slowly, but surely and inevitably, flatten your entire world.

819. I have never listened to an audiobook in my life. We are not children who need a beditme story before going to bed; if you are listening to a book, it must be a shit book, otherwise you would not be able to parse it aurally, or at least parse it properly. The written text is supposed to be much denser than the spoken word — that is in fact the whole point of it — because the author has all the time in the world to build it carefully and pack it with meaning. You are supposed to read, stop, go back, stop, think, take notes even, etc. when reading a book that challenges you — and you should ONLY read books that challenge you, of course. Audiobooks are for morons, like podcasts, or YouTube vlogs, etc. If you touch that stuff at all I guarantee you that you are 100% subhuman. I would rather never read a word again than touch that shit, and in the one or two occasions that I have SKIMMED it in my entire life, or experimented with it in any way, I only did it to investigate the latest mindless fads subhumans have invented to waste their pathetic lives.

818. It is astonishing to me that popularizing scribblers like Dawkins et al. still adhere to a fundamental difference between "facts" and "opinions" over a hundred years after relativity theory, in which observers moving with different speeds (i.e. everyone, since we are all ultimately "moving with different speeds") can't even agree on what time of the day it is, let alone on anything more complex. In modern physics, the time of the day or the dimensions of an object, or its speed, or any other attribute of it whatsoever, are a matter of opinion, dear popularizing scribblers! and it is a disgrace that you, who have taken it upon yourselves to explain modern science to the general public, still fail to grasp this, despite all the pompous titles you hold and academic chairs you occupy between you. Nietzsche had already grasped it several decades before relativity ("There are no facts, only interpretations"), and without any mathematics, but if you blockheads still fail to grasp it even with math you should be made to eat the stupid dogmatic books with which you are poisoning the public's mind in the name of a naive, simplistic "objectivity"! (On the other hand, relativity theory is "Continental", since it was created by a German, and after all it's "merely a theory", without which our spacecraft wouldn't function, among many other things, and that's why the "pragmatic", "realist" Anglo-Saxons like Dawkins and his ilk are still stuck on Medieval Newtonian physics lol — and that's a fact, retards!)

817. After a successful operation: "The danger has passed. It's not your time to go yet. Only God now knows when that time will come." But the truth is that not even God knows it. I mean think about it for a moment: Why would he need that information? Does God really need a database with the exact times in which every creature in the universe will expire? It is only the creatures themselves who think that such information is terribly important, and terribly useful to someone. And they are welcome to continue believing in this delusion, if it makes them feel better about themselves, but I am telling you that God doesn't give a shit, not because he doesn't care about anyone, but because knowledge of the exact nanosecond of everyone's deaths makes no difference to him, and to his caring. And so it is with all the other useless trivia that comprises God's much touted "omniscience". One would have to be dumb as a door knob to think such information useful at all, never mind a crucial aspect of godhood — which is why subhumans believe precisely that.

816. Ultimate insight into and meaning of the Eternal Recurrence: The rest of the universe is merely a device that I use to recreate myself — and all the rest is silence.

815. Solar energy is said to be "renewable" because, unlike fossil fuels, it "never runs out". But nothing is really "renewable" since, despite what environmentalists think, the sun is not eternal, it's just that it will take billions of years for it to die, so by our standards it feels eternal because our standards are so puny. I am not trying to dissuade anyone from using handy terms like "renewable" and such, but I am asking people to think a bit more about what such terms mean for everday purposes, and what they really mean, in a strict sense. It is this strict sense that you must master if you want to get anywhere with philosophy, and avoild fallacies like the "balanced" nature of environmentalists and so on. They love "renewable" energy sources because these preserve nature's "natural balance" or some shit. But where's the balance, pray tell, if the sun is due to implode and wipe the entire planet and everything on it and in it anyway? And since everything is due for annihilation anyway and the only way to "save" anything at all is some sci-fi Babylon 5-type Noah's Ark project that's anything but "natural" (and which again would fail to save anything in the long term since, after the sun goes, the galaxy will follow and eventually even the universe, in a sense, with the Big Crunch), doesn't that give us license to do whatever the hell we please in the meantime with the planet and everything on it and in it? In the long term, you cannot "save" the pandas and the dodos no matter what you do — you can't even "save" yourself, you sorry excuse of a savior! so how could you "save" anything else? Everything's due to die: good, bad, mediocre — all of it — every single thing that has existed and will exist will flow and transform itself into everything else, so instead of wasting all your life trying to stop this eternal, cosmic process, maybe you should start thinking about how to participate in it? How to play with it, like the rest of us — all the creative people, who are too busy crafting new, never-before-seen things by molding existing into future ones, and thus have little time to bother with all the havoc our actions wreak to effect this transformation? Or keep trying to freeze the universe lol, if that's what floats your boat. All I am saying is you'll be pulverized long before any of the creative people will be. And that's because we'll be the ones doing the pulverizing, son. We'll wipe you and everything you love out of existence without even knowing you are there, just like we do to countless other inferior organisms every day, and for the same reason (because your stupid attempts to freeze the universe are standing in the way of our creative power).

814. The environmentalists think lots of things are worth saving — ultimately everything, in the kind of zooification and museumification that Baudrillard spent half his life railing against — but for my part I think the exact opposite: that lots of things should be destroyed, and chief among them everyone who thinks that nothing should be.

813. Once more on Leibniz vs. Newton. Leibniz's God is supremely rational, but Newton's is the common Christian God whose will is "unknowable", and that's why on all the deepest issues Newton has nothing to say, but simply attributes them all to "God" — i.e. to his own ignorance.

Lichtenberg: "Are all our conceptions of God, after all, anything more than personified incomprehensibility?"

   So, for Lichtenberg, God is a catch-all term for everything one doesn't understand. So the more one comes to understand, the smaller this sphere becomes — and therefore this God — while at the same time the ego grows at the exact same rate, and begins to demand "its own" (Stirner). Finally, right past the tipping point, where the amount of one's insight surpasses the amount of one's ignorance, calling the ignorance "God" ceases to make much sense, and using it for the insight instead — i.e. for the ego, for oneself — is the only logical thing to do. And that's how the God concept shifts from designating "personified incomprehensibility" to personified comprehensibility, and God transforms from a "holy" ghost and spirit... to flesh and blood (and metal, and circuits): to an "evil" man and superman; to me and my descendants.

812. The very word "work" shows that it is a subhuman concept. Entirely abstract, divorced from any specific activity, since anything at all can be "work", even sucking cock or watching paint dry, as long as someone is willing to pay you money to suck his cock or watch his paint dry. The abstractness of money perfectly complements the abstractness of work, their fluidity and interchangeability, their perfect vacuousness, since neither "money" nor "work" have any inherent value when nothing more is specified about them or exchanged for them (money is just paper and work is even less than that since watching paint dry is worth less in itself than even paper, which you can at least use for something) — and yet for the subhumans it is only THEY that have value: work and money, while the actual activity involved or its place in the socioeconomic structure — whether fun or boring, harmful or beneficial, and so on — is irrelevant and certainly uninteresting compared to the all-conquering importance and necessity of somehow "finding work and earning money" — whatever these might be or exchanged for.

811. You are almost entirely shielded from reality, inside the slave society, and the only ones who can give you a wake-up call are criminals, or the police. Which it will be will depend on your temperament: if you are weak it will be criminals, if strong the police. And whether or not you will wake up as a result, or if you'll prefer to snooze, is another matter too: all reality can do is give you the wake-up call, but plenty of people choose to ignore it and die in their sleep.

810. The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is without a doubt the quintessential Anglo-Saxon psychological novel, postulating as it does that man's "good" and "evil" sides are fundamentally opposed and may therefore be amenable to complete separation. And what an irony that the book was written in the same year, more or less, that the "contintentals" were writing Beyond Good and Evil...

809. The Blame Game. "Whose fault is it?"
   But if you want to maximize your freedom of action you have to place the engine of change inside you. The more of the blame — better put, the responsibility — that you are therefore able to assume, the more options you'll have for shaping your situation in the future. The highest point in this direction is occupied by God, who assumes full responsibility not only for himself, but for everyone else too; the lowest by the monotheist who entirely disclaims responsibility and imputes everything that has ever happened or ever will to God (and rightly so, given how weak the monotheist is in comparison). Inbetween there's everyone else: the entire spectrum of lifeforms in the universe.
   I, for my part, know where I am standing in this spectrum. Where do you?

808. What Is The Faggotcube? The faggotcube is my term for what a bunch of ugly, stupid and resentful nerds on the internet call the "manosphere". What these born losers have basically done is hijack the work of Erik Markovik, aka Mystery, and that of his successors' — none of whom, nota bene, were ugly, stupid or resentful (Mystery himself was a very handsome, smart and kind fellow — as were his successors, more or less — who could easily have had a satisfying sex and love life without any theory or tricks whatever), and twisted and perverted it into a hideous mindset and worldview whose goal is purely and simply self-hypnosis: the closing of the nerd's eyes towards himself and the entirety of human culture and civilization and the elevation of sexual intercourse to the supreme human act and state of existence. Even worse, it's not really intercourse itself that the nerds are apotheosizing — since any guy with a steady girlfriend has them beat in that regard, as he gets as much sex in a month or two as the best of the PUAs, by their own admission, get in an entire year — but what they call the "notch count" — in plain words, the inability to attract and retain a genuinely cool and beautiful girl and hence the necessity of chasing after and sleeping with a never-ending stream of mediocre-looking skanks and retards which, once more by the nerds' own admission, are not worth more than a couple lays at best, and most of them barely even one. This theory of the notch-count as supreme existential value, which sits squarely, so to speak, at the center of the faggotcube, is then elaborated by these pathetic tin-foil hat wearing morons and faggots (chief among them Heartiste, Rollo Tomassi, Roosh and Krauser — just in case you thought I wasn't going to name names) into a complete worldview and philosophy in which even the price of milk or chance of rain tomorrow has something to do with someone's notch-count somewhere. You simply can't get away from the notch-count if you spend any length of time immersed in the wretched scribblings of the mentally stunted bloggers who subscribe to the faggotcube worldview, in which the masters of the universe are ugly, stupid and resentful losers who've spent their entire lives begging mediocre-looking skanks for sex. Never mind that some of the greatest thinkers and leaders ever — like Nietzsche and Hitler, for example — were pretty much virgins who had far greater things in their minds than mere ejaculation — elementary historical facts like these get as much traction in the faggotcube as elementary biology gets in feminist circles; in both cases science and history must either be brought into disrepute, or be simply ignored, so that at last, after a sufficient number of asinine forum- and blog-posts and badly-written ebooks have been consumed, black will come to seem white and white black, and utterly disinherited creatures like the PUAs and the feminists will appear as supermen and superwomen adorning the crown of creation.
   But enough is enough! Just as Nietzsche exposed the feminists all the way back in 1888 ("The feminist is the woman who is incapable of bearing children"), I am exposing the PUAs, MRAs, and assorted frothing morons and retards now. Bottom line is that a "manosphere" writer is about as much of a man as a feminist is feminine, and it is therefore time we took away from them the sacred terms they are so flagrantly misusing and abusing, and gave them the correct philosophical terms that perfectly signify who these people are and what they are doing. Whoever thinks that sexuality is the supreme human faculty, then (which it obviously isn't; thought is), is a faggot, plain and simple — a sexually starved, genetically inferior loser who is sexually starved precisely because he is genetically inferior — and let that part of the internet which is devoted to and represents this medical condition and worldview be henceforth known as the faggotcube. — I have spoken.
   (As for the real manosphere, wanna know what the real manosphere is, fyi? It's NASA's and ESA's websites. It is Nature's and New Scientist's. It's my sites and Mark Rippetoe's and MV Agusta's; it's Guns & Ammo and TransWorld Snowboarding. Even The Economist, despite its relenless liberal propaganda. In short, it's websites at the cutting-edge of their respective fields which, as a consequence of that, contain no whining at all but only sheer undadulterated power and insight and value. — Just in case you were wondering is all.)

807. Redistribution doesn't work. It never has and never will. No amount of taking money from the rich and giving it to the average or the poor will ever make these people rich, because the moment the average or the poor get some money, they give it straight back to the rich, for the same reason that the rich became rich in the first place: because, thanks to their superior intelligence, they design the iPhones and perform the surgeries that every sane person desires. The only way for the scheme to work would be if the average and poor people themselves preferred the products and services of the average and poor people, to those of the rich, but they do not, because even they are not that stupid, and inequality continues. The journalists and pseudo-academics, meanwhile, are still trying to concoct increasingly elaborate schemes to reduce this damned rising inequality that, in their view, is the scourge of the 21st century, but here's where a true academic just stepped in, in the form of Austrian professor Walter Scheidel, to shut their bullshit down, in his great 504-page study of inequality from the Stone Age to the present, The Great Leveller.

"Only four things cause large-scale levelling. Epidemics and pandemics can do it, as the Black Death did when it changed the relative values of land and labour in late medieval Europe. So can the complete collapse of whole states and economic systems, as at the end of the Tang dynasty in China and the disintegration of the western Roman Empire. When everyone is pauperised, the rich lose most. Total revolution, of the Russian or Chinese sort, fits the bill. So does the 20th-century sibling of such revolutions: the war of mass-mobilisation."

   In other words: Destruction, and only Destruction. Only mass destruction can reduce inequality, and a comet hitting the earth would turn us all into electrons, at which point there'd be no journalists and pseudo-academics left, unfortunately, to scribble a million tiny little articles to celebrate the ultimate and logical conclusion of their efforts.
   Meanwhile, the rest of us whom supremely unequal evolution endowed with working brains, have set aside the scribblers' word vomit, and thought long and hard about the issue, to finally divine its true cause and understand it, and therefore learn to fully appreciate it and even love it. The reason that destruction equalizes — and the greater the destruction, the greater the equalization — is because it undoes civilization, running back the clock of evolution. In prehistoric times we weren't equal either, but the distance between us was far smaller than it is today because we lacked all the scientific and technological advances which of course the more intelligent among us will utilize to better effect than the less intelligent, to succeed (unless you think that a moron and a genius can utilize a digital computer to the same advantage, in which case you are a moron).
   There's nothing for it: civilization/evolution and inequality are synonyms (with evolution being the biological form of civilization, as civilization is the technological form of evolution), and the idea that we'd go through all this trouble to create them with the goal of becoming equal is so preposterous that only someone who is utterly uncivilized could believe it, much less want it. We were equal — or at least nearly so — right after the Big Bang, in the quark soup that lasted fractions of a second, and we had that experience, and enjoyed it, and have been getting further and further away from it ever since, for the simple reason that stasis is boring and we'd rather try new things and enjoy ourselves instead. And the newest thing we've set our sights on is a world of cybernetically enhanced genius demigods fighting it out with the aliens and between themselves for Supreme World Domination (because, in the end, as everyone knows, there can be only one).
   But don't worry average people and poor people and degenerate people, because, as a result of this cosmic struggle, we'll turn you all into quarks again, and you'll have, for a few fractions of a second at least, your beloved equality (or at any rate, near-equality) once more. So the journalists' and pseudo-academics' equal (or at least near-equal) utopia will indeed happen, only a few billion years later than they imagine it, which is fine, as far as they are concerned, since subhumans' capacity for abstraction is so weak they have trouble parsing any number greater than 100. Just read the kind of dribble that they scribble and you'll see.

806. I know there are some people who are interested in suffering, oppression, poverty, misfortune and so on, and in my own way I understand and respect how they feel and what they do about it. I think suffering — whether human, or animal, or alien or whatever — is great. It's cool, it's fantastic, tremendous. Very interesting. For my part, however, I find snowboarding far more interesting, and I prefer doing that instead. I am sorry.

805. The wizards of the financial system are said to be useless and even parasitical because they "are not creating anything", but this attitude is wrong. They take on risk, and given how averse subhumans are to this absolutely essential aspect of the creative process, what this group of individuals are contributing to our society is no small thing at all.

804. Charles M. Schulz: "I love mankind, it's people I can't stand." — Precisely because "people" aren't "mankind".

803. 1000 approaches and Krauser still hadn't got laid, when he started out as a PUA. I got laid on my second. And 18th. And 19th. And 25th. By now Krauser has done tens of thousands of approaches while I've barely reached 500, and my book on pick-up theory will utterly demolish all of his. Can you see now the power of genetics?

802. Women are simultaneously portrayed as victims needing societal help and empowered superwomen who can do anything men can do. So which is it? It seems they need our help to become superwomen... but isn't he who gives the help always more powerful than he who receives it?

801. Women mature faster than men. And rodents mature in the space of a few weeks — look out mankind! With a little affirmative action the polyculture of rodents will take over the universe!

800. Self-education is a myth. Nothing starts from nothing in this dimension of life either, as in every other. Reading a book is not self-education in the pure sense: you are still learning from someone (the author and all those that he learned from). I wish people would be prouder to have learned from others than to have learned from no one (i.e. to have learned nothing). Pride in self-education is a sign of an extremely low level of culture. Even animals learn from others.

799. Of course "hate crimes" are vastly different from all those others ones that are committed out of sheer unadulterated love.

798. The overestimation of the importance of the practical is the hallmark of the stupid, that of theory of the intelligent, and that of neither... requires genius.

797. "What would icycalm think?", many people are now asking. And at first this is a good thought experiment, but in the long run it doesn't, or at least shouldn't, matter. Don't try to guess what I will think about what you will say, like my various plagiarists now do, is what I am saying. That is reactive thinking, and it's always bad. The point is for me to keep hammering at the bad shit in your thought process — not until you figure out what I think is bad, and thereby come to avoid it — but until YOU YOURSELF COME TO SEE IT AS BAD, at which point you'll have internalized my way of thinking and you won't have to think about me or need me at all. That's how proper learning works — everything else is monkey business.

796. Is the truth to the Right or to the Left? — The "truth" is the continued functioning and maximization of productivity of any given society, for this is the objective of societies: production, not a pissing contest for the victory of some abstract-theoretical ideology. So at any given point in time the "truth" is on precisely that mixture of Right and Left policies that allows the society to function at its maximum rate of productivity. Everything else is "ideology" — and pretty stupid ideology at that too.

795. A simple demonstration of the gigantic chasm of the difference in viewpoint between me and Roosh and the retardosphere. Roosh and the retardosphere think that modern women's standards are "too high", whereas for me they are absurdly low — criminally low, even. If I ran things, it would be a crime to have sex with someone as ugly, stunted and resentful as Roosh and his friends and readers. If women adopted my standards no one living today besides me would ever get laid (and that's how it will be in the coming robotic future; that's precisely where cloning comes in). Nothing is more revealing of the kind of individual we are discussing than the fact that Roosh and the retardosphere ARE ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNING IN SUPPORT OF LOWER STANDARDS.

794. A handy way to differentiate between ascending and descending individuals is to observe their reaction to news of increasing competition. Do they yell the equivalent of "Awesome news, bring it the fuck on!", or do they resort to calls for collective action in order to "address the problem"? If the tone of their response doesn't tell you the whole story (which it should), note that the former reply as INDIVIDUALS, whereas the latter turn to some form of a COLLECTIVE body in order to formulate a response, and that does tell the whole story, every. single. time.

793. "Somalia is not a humanitarian disaster; it is an evolutionary disaster. The current drought is not the worst in 50 years, as the BBC and all the aid organisations claim. It is nothing compared to the droughts in 1960/61 or 73/74. And there are continuing droughts every five years or so. It's just that there are now four times the population; having been kept alive by famine relief, supplied by aid organisations, over the past 50 years. So, of course, the effects of any drought now, is a famine. They cannot even feed themselves in a normal rainfall year.
   Worst yet, the effects of these droughts, and poor nutrition in the first three years of a child's life, have a lasting effect on the development of the infant brain, so that if they survive, they will never achieve a normal IQ. Consequently, they are selectively breeding a population who cannot be educated, let alone one that is being educated; a recipe for disaster.
   We are seeing this impact now, and it can only exacerbate, to the detriment of their neighbours, and their environment as well. This scenario can only end in an even worse disaster; with even worse suffering, for those benighted people, and their descendants. Eventually, some mechanism will intervene, be it war, disease or starvation.
   So what do we do? Let them starve? What a dilemma for our Judeo/Christian/Islamic Ethos; as well as Hindu/Buddhist morality. And this is beginning to happen in Kenya, Ethiopia, and other countries in Asia, like Pakistan. Is this the beginning of the end of civilisation?
   AFRICA is giving nothing to anyone outside Africa — apart from AIDS and new disease. Even as we see African states refusing to take action to restore something resembling civilisation in Zimbabwe, the Begging bowl for Ethiopia is being passed around to us out of Africa, yet again. It is nearly 25 years since the famous Feed The World campaign began in Ethiopia, and in that time Ethiopia's population has grown from 33.5 million to 78+ million today. So, why on earth should I do anything to encourage further catastrophic demographic growth in that country? Where is the logic? There is none.
   To be sure, there are two things saying that logic doesn't count. One is my conscience, and the other is the picture, yet again, of another wide-eyed child, yet again, gazing, yet again, at the camera, which yet again, captures the tragedy of children starving.
   Sorry. My conscience has toured this territory on foot and financially. Unlike most of you, I have been to Ethiopia; like most of you, I have stumped up the loot to charities to stop starvation there. The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a low IQ, AK 47-bearing moron, siring children whenever the whim takes him, and blaming the world because he is uneducated, poor and left behind. There is no doubt a good argument why we should prolong this predatory and dysfunctional economic, social and sexual system but I do not know what it is.
   There is, on the other hand, every reason not to write a column like this. It will win no friends, and will provoke the self-righteous wrath of, well, the self-righteous, hand wringing, letter writing wrathful individuals, a species which never fails to contaminate almost every debate in Irish life with its sneers and its moral superiority. It will also probably enrage some of the finest men in Irish life, like John O'Shea, of Goal; and the Finucane brothers, men whom I admire enormously.
   So be it. But, please, please, you self-righteously wrathful, spare me mention of our own Irish Famine, with this or that lazy analogy. There is no comparison. Within 20 years of the Famine, the Irish population was down by 30%. Over the equivalent period, thanks to Western food, the Mercedes 10-wheel truck and the Lockheed Hercules planes, Ethiopia's population has more than doubled.
   Alas, that wretched country is not alone in its madness. Somewhere, over the rainbow, lies Somalia, another fine land of violent, AK 47-toting, khat-chewing, girl-circumcising, permanently tumescent layabouts, and housing pirates of the ocean. Indeed, we now have almost an entire continent of sexually hyperactive, illiterate indigents, with tens of millions of people who only survive because of help from the outside world or allowances by the semi-communist Governments they voted for, money supplied by lending it from the World Bank!
   This dependency has not stimulated political prudence or commonsense. Indeed, voodoo idiocy seems to be in the ascendant, with the president of South Africa being a firm believer in the efficacy of a little tap water on the post-coital penis as a sure preventative against AIDS infection. Needless to say, poverty, hunger and societal meltdown have not prevented idiotic wars involving Tigre, Uganda, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea etcetera.
   Broad brush-strokes, to be sure. But broad brush-strokes are often the way that history paints its gaudier, if more decisive, chapters. Japan, China, Russia, Korea, Poland, Germany, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 20th century have endured worse broad brush-strokes than almost any part of Africa. They are now — one way or another — virtually all giving aid to or investing in Africa, whereas Africa, with its vast savannahs and its lush pastures, is giving almost nothing to anyone, apart from AIDS.
   Meanwhile, Africa's peoples are outstripping their resources, and causing catastrophic ecological degradation. By 2050, the population of Ethiopia will be 177 million; the equivalent of France, Germany and Benelux today, but located on the parched and increasingly protein-free wastelands of the Great Rift Valley. So, how much sense does it make for us actively to increase the adult population of what is already a vastly over-populated, environmentally devastated and economically dependent country?
   How much morality is there in saving an Ethiopian child from starvation today, for it to survive to a life of brutal circumcision, poverty, hunger, violence and sexual abuse, resulting in another half-dozen such wide-eyed children, with comparably jolly little lives ahead of them. Of course, it might make you feel better, which is a prime reason for so much charity!
   But that is not good enough. For self-serving generosity has been one of the curses of Africa. It has sustained political systems which would otherwise have collapsed. It prolonged the Eritrean-Ethiopian war by nearly a decade. It is inspiring Bill Gates' programme to rid the continent of malaria, when, in the almost complete absence of personal self-discipline, that disease is one of the most efficacious forms of population-control now operating. If his programme is successful, tens of millions of children who would otherwise have died in infancy will survive to adulthood, he boasts.
   Oh good: then what? I know, let them all come here (to Ireland) or America. (Not forgetting Australia!)
   Yes, that's an idea." Kevin Myers, Irish Independent

792. The higher the lifeform, the more powerful that it is, and therefore the closer it stands to God in the order of rank of lifeforms, and hence the more accurately it can empathize with and understand him. That's why the bottom-feeder subhuman Christians think that I love all lifeforms, which is certainly true to an extent, but with a tough, unequal love they can't understand that has little sympathy for and patience with weakness; whereas the superhuman Greeks conceived of their gods not only as refraining from helping mortals, for the most part, but even enjoying their suffering and being entertained by it, which is far closer to my psychology than anyone else who has ever taken my name in vain and presumed to speak on my account has gotten.

791. More than 99 percent of all species that have ever existed were extinct long before homo sapiens arrived on the scene, and the environmentalists are trying to convince us that extinction is anti-natural. That's the level of stupidity we are dealing with here.

790. "The concepts 'true' and 'untrue' have, as it seems to me, no meaning in optics." (Nietzsche)

789. Weak people need the old religions, for what are they to do in their hours of greatest weakness? They need an interpretation of existence that relieves their suffering. This interpretation must be based on a model of the universe, a schematic of the rest of the universe outside themselves, and this schema will of course be greatly simplified. All models are simplifications anyway, and given that we are talking about weak people here (which means: slow in the head and/or body, but above all in the head, since our species' greatest strength is intelligence) theirs will be an especially simplified model; an absurd caricature of reality, when all is said and done; a grossly simplified and exaggerated image of it, but still nevertheless an image of it, which is to say a view of the universe from a certain perspective. And just as a mole's view of the forest is extremely murky and basic and simple while an imaging satellite's is vastly clearer and more complex — but still depicts the same object nevertheless: the forest, and hence is by no means entirely dissociated from reality — is not a "pure fantasy" in other words, and certainly contains an amount of truth in it and useful information, such that for someone who had seen the satellite data and had the capacity to parse it and who was then given an image of the mole's viewpoint, he could identify, if he was perceptive enough, that yes, they depict the same forest, and here is a clump of trees that is common to both viewpoints, only at a different resolution and viewed from different angles, so will the philosopher treat the old religions' particular beliefs, examining each in turn and pronouncing them extremely murky and simplistic, yes, but still ultimately true, when all is said and done.
   To find the truth in religion — in the old religions, which is to say those extremely simplistic and grossly exaggerated absurd caricatures of philosophical systems that our ancestors constructed and which are so outdated that no one believes in them (i.e. no one uses them) anymore: that is a task that only an Overman can tackle. For everyone else sees nothing there: they only see a joke. But it is the understanding of common people that to an Overman is a joke, and the greatest joke is their obstinate, unthinking hazing of philosophy and religion (which is to say of thought).

788. What lies at the bottom of all talk about the "materialist treadmill"? Treadmills are boring. People who use them as metaphor to denigrate "materialism", i.e. the products of mankind's creativity, are thereby saying that they don't like said products; that they don't know how to use them, they don't know how to employ them to enhance their lives and extract enjoyment out of them (not to speak of using them to create new and higher products and experiences...) What these people are ultimately saying, then, is that they are too lame to figure out what to do with mankind's latest and highest creations. Put simply and crudely, they are saying that they are not human... And they are not mistaken either! Take a good look at them and you'll see.

787. So, remind me again why everyone is so scared of the Devil, when God is the one killing everyone in the Bible?

786. If democracy's success then is a sign that the average person has become too strong to effectively control, communism's success is the opposite sign: a sign that the average person is a stupid peasant and that the gap between him and the upper class that's been lording it over him for eons is vast and utterly unbridgeable. That's why communism succeeded in such backwards nations as Russia and China, while failing miserably everywhere in Western Europe (even though the latter invented it via the efforts of a decadent middle-class intellectual). The crude enforced equality that Marx and his unhinged followers preached sounded like heaven on earth for the untold masses of Russian and Chinese peasants, but in the ears of the sprawling, multifarious European middle classes it sounded like the hell that it would indeed have been for them had they not risen up to smash it every time it tried to rear its ugly head. And of course, no one went as far at combatting the communist plague as the Americans. Just as they had rediscovered democracy before anyone else, the largest middle class the world has ever seen sensed the communist menace most deeply, and rose up to face it down. And the rest, as they say, is history. Modern history that quite a few people know, but that no one, besides me, knows how to interpret correctly, precisely because they only know history (i.e. random facts) and nothing else with which to interpret it.

785. Why did democracy originate in Greece and not in say Africa or China or Scandinavia? And why did it take so long — 2,000 years! — until another nation (the USA) adopted it?
   Nietzsche gives a hint when he talks about the quantity and quality of Greek personalities — unrivalled in all of antiquity — before which even the Renaissance pales. So, first off, realize that, after removing women, children and slaves, only about 10,000 Athenians voted. Athenian democracy was not about empowering the weak, but about a very powerful average people whom no one was strong enough to bring to heel and rule. Democratic tendencies — when they appear naturally, through the will of the people, as in America and France, not imposed on them by outside as in the third world today — are a symptom of advancing civilization, and of a plurality of wills and voices that are becoming increasingly harder to control. In Greece this occurred 2,000 years before anywhere else simply due to how absurdly civilized that nation was compared to any other. So educated, inquisitive, multifarious and demanding that, at times, there was simply no one around strong enough to control them, and that's when and why democracy was instituted — not as an ideal solution, but simply for lack of a better one, to avoid a complete disintegration of society. And that's why Sparta never became democratic. Sparta was strong, but stupid — almost uncivilized compared to Athens. Even in Rome republican tendencies would take centuries to evolve, and would never get anywhere near how far in this direction the Athenians went, simply because the Romans — even at the height of their powers — were nowhere near as civilized as the Greeks had earlier been. So democracy might indeed represent "the declining form of the power to organize" (Nietzsche), but it makes a difference if those you are trying to control are African bushmen or Asian pygmies, or a race of Western supermen. One lifeform's or society's decline is the distant summit that another lifeform or society, which may indeed be currently ascending, can never hope to reach.
   The ailments of the strong are problems that the weak only wished they had.

784. Evolution is inequality. Otherwise towards what are you evolving?

783. The pseudo-intellectual dream about the internet was that equal access to information would make people equal. It's like saying, "Dogs are now allowed in public libraries". But what does that mean? That dogs will suddenly start writing treatises on Leibniz? Subhumans' magical thinking believes that it is the stuff that makes people, while it is patent that it is people that make stuff. Books make you smart, they say, for example. But if you are not already smart, a smart book will make you stupider (this is how pseudo-intellectuals are created). Or they say, "Money made him powerful". No, he made money because he is powerful (intelligent, enterprising, audacious), and history is full of morons who inherited a ton of money and wasted all of it. If you needed money to make money, as poor people believe, there would be no rich people and we would still be living in caves today.
   In fact, the opposite to what the pseudo-intellectuals believe is true. Not only will a less mentally gifted person employ the new technologies less efficiently than a more gifted one, but the lowest of them will even use them to their detriment. That's why I can use the internet to navigate straight to the best stuff ever written and create from that stunning philosophical solutions with clinical precision while y'all waste half your lives "surfing" and "browsing" shitty pages like morons, to the point of clinical addiction even. Not only are you not benefitting from the internet, but it is plain that y'all would have been far better off without it, since you are too fuckin' stupid to figure out how to use it properly.
   That technology will lead to equality is an absurd delusion that could only ever be advanced by people who have not the faintest idea of how technology works, or that it is in fact precisely the expression of rising inequality. Consider biological technology for a moment, to see more simply, and thus more clearly, how progress works. Biological technologies are stuff like opposable thumbs, bicameral vision, larger brains, etc. Do you think all these advances led to equality with the amoebas and the plankton that failed to develop them? So why should the technological advances lead us there? In fact it is patent that the opposite is true, and that biological and technological advances are precisely the means by which inequality is created, and expanded! How fuckin' stoopid do you have to be to not fuckin' get that? All of you retarded resentful morons would have been much closer to equality with someone like Elon Musk, or even with me, back in the Stone Age. But now? Hahahahaha. No wonder you are hallucinating about equality today. Hallucinations are all you have left, I am afraid.

782. What does the concept universe mean? It means "everything", which is as much to say that it means nothing, since it is precisely by distinguishing something from the "everything" that we create concepts and their associated names in the first place. The highest concept therefore finally proves itself to simultaneously be the lowest, the emptiest concept of all, the anti-concept even, that can be deployed at its wielder's whim to detroy all others — a weapon of mass destruction of such vast complexity and terrifying efficacy (nukes are mere toys in comparison) that the only one who has so far managed to figure out how to use it is me.

781. —What is tomorrow? The next stage in your self-transformation, the next form of you. Not to think of time in the customary abstract-disembodied manner, but in a deeply personal one. I am not traversing time, I AM time — time doesn't happen without me, it even waits for me if need be — time is something that I create by working on my environment and myself; time is me.

780. Eventually, cutting-edge scientists will start reading my work. Explain what will happen then. When I read a novel I correct the typos; I don't stop reading and start screaming that I can't understand what's going on because of the typo; I even take a pen and fix it myself. I don't even bother the author about it. As the specialist, it's your job to fix my "typo" that pertains to your discipline, it's not my job to become a specialist in order to fix it. I refuse to fall into your trap by allowing you to draw me into your discipline, where you'll have the upper hand and feel you can "defeat" me. I can only be defeated at my level; I cannot be defeated at yours; and if you have really managed to defeat me it will be possible to frame your counter-theory in terms that non-specialists too can understand, in which case there won't be a need for anyone to be drawn into your specialty to understand it in the first place. The days of scientists and pseudo-scientists shutting thinking people up by spouting gibberish are over, and the reason for this is that shutting people up is a reactive move, while the active move is to lead people, and you can't lead anyone with gibberish (see one of my latest copy-cats, Mundus Millennialis, for a recent demonstration of that). Let me also point out, if you attempt to use some new research paper or other that "proves" my theory is bunkum, the research paper that proved that most research papers are bunkum. I don't read research papers, I read books written by authors who have read many research papers and formed them into narrow, provisional theories. It is these theories that I use as building-blocks in my mega-theory, and if the terminology I employ is in places out of date, or even, on occasion, wrong, use your brain and your specialist knowledge to fix it, and then tell me about it so that I can fix it too and I will thank you for it. As for defeating me, save yourself some trouble and forget about it: only philosophers ever defeat other philosophers, and if you are any kind of specialist worth your salt you are excluded from that group by definition.

779. "Political corruption." Let's put aside the mindless hysteria that surrounds this sorry subject and think about it calmly and reasonably for a moment. Since democracy is an inherently corrupt form of government — more precisely, a declining one — it follows that what the democrats see as corrupt will in fact be healthy. And so it is, if you consider it logically for a moment. For what would be corrupt would be having an opportunity to increase your standard of living and that of the people you most care about in this world — your relatives and friends — and not taking it. To ignore the opportunity to get a better home or car, a better education for your children, better quality of food and greater scope of travel and so on — that is what would have been corrupt, and the fact that, as far as we know, no politician seems to have passed on that opportunity, is proof of how healthy they all are. Normal, healthy people who know about the best things in life and are not afraid of running risks in order to acquire them for themselves and those they care about. And of course they will care more about their relatives and friends than for the rest of their state's citizens, just as they will care more about their state's citizens than for foreigners or aliens and so on. So corruption my ass. I would never vote for a politician who didn't steal. "Too dumb or cowardly to even steal" — who would want to be governed by someone like that? Besides the fact that their stealing is not really stealing, as I've already explained, since that is what it means to govern: that you already own all of that stuff, otherwise how on earth could you ever be said to be truly "governing" it if you can't use it the way you see fit, or even profit from it at all? It would be an extremely weak form of government at best, which is precisely why subhumans get extremely weak governments.

778. Macbeth's famous line that life is "a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" is often used by pessimists and the half-educated as a standard beneath which to fight their wretched fight. And Macbeth isn't wrong, if by "life" you assume he's talking about the universe. The whole universe doesn't signify anything because there's no one outside of it for whom to signify something, but parts of the universe signify everything to various lifeforms, and it's only because the universe as a whole signifies nothing that it can signify everything to everyone inside of it — even to those who pretend that, to them, nothing does (and what that signifies to them is that they are cool, intelligent people who have figured out stuff that others haven't. Hence they become content with their lot, and turn their attention to projecting this contentment outwards via means of verbiage that's meant to glorify their relative passivity by demeaning the activity of others.)

777. Nature. The usual definition. But if birds' homes are nature, why not ours?
   Seen more deeply, "nature" is dubbed everything inferior. Isn't it suspicious that all inferior species and everything they do and make is automatically deemed natural — even self-immolating lemmings! — while everything the species of species — the superspecies — does and makes is unnatural, if not indeed anti-natural? It's like saying "only the losers are natural", "only losing is natural". "Winning is anti-natural."
   Revaluation of this value: the opposite value. The losers are anti-natural. All inferior species are anti-natural, and that's why we will exterminate them. And the only natural species is we. Only mankind is natural. And I've already explained what mankind is. I am mankind: me and only me. I am nature. I am God. Me: I, I, I. Long live I.

776. I could never hang out with a guy like Dan Bilzerian. He's into a lot of sports, and apparently he plays games too on occasion, which is great, and I am all about tagging as much pussy as you can handle, but what I can't handle is all the "hanging out" and posing and socializing that douches like him do. If you are up for some ACTION — whether it be sports or videogames or pick-up — I am all in; but if all you guys wanna do is hobnob with other boring retards like yourselves I am out and you douches can enjoy yourselves without me, cheers.

775. "The meaning" of "life" lol. As if there could only be one meaning! As if there were only one type of life! O subhumans! Whatever the meaning of your little lives may be, I can tell you right now for sure that it doesn't involve philosophy.

774. If you say, as Julian Barbour does in his great book The End of Time, that "time doesn't exist, it's merely an illusion", you might as well say "I don't exist, I am merely an illusion", as Baudrillard did indeed end up saying ("I am my own simulacrum"), since as Hermann Minkowski pointed out while elaborating Einstein's conception of spacetime, "Nobody has ever noticed a place except at a time, or a time except at a place". By killing time, in other words, you simultaneously kill all "places", including your very own: i.e. your own perspective on things, which you created precisely by creating your very own personal spacetime frame, whose uniqueness implies that 1) It will fundamentally diverge from everyone else's spacetime frames, and 2) When added to all the others will amount to zero because at the level of the universe all these divergencies (which you abstracted by subtracting their relative values from the sum of all of them in the first place) cancel each other out — leading those who believe that a model of the world is the same thing as the world — the scientists, one of whom is Julian Barbour — to conclude that the universe doesn't exist, and therefore nothing inside it either, neither time nor space — or Baudrillard and Julian Barbour.
   We are still therefore waiting for someone to write "The End of Julian Barbour", which is to say the book that explains to us that Julian Barbour "doesn't exist", because he is "merely an illusion". The question is whether Julian Barbour himself will agree with that book when he reads it. And that's where John Bell comes in, with his acutely psychological observation that "It is always interesting to find that solipsists, when they have children, have life insurance". Barbour admits that he has it. Did Baudrillard also have any, or did he trust that the simulacra of his wife and children would do just fine without the simulacrum of the simulated policy's simulated money, and save himself the simulacrum of the expense of simulating buying it?
   In short, don't hold your breath waiting for scientists or second-rate philosophers to understand how thought works; just chill out and wait for this book's final chapter instead. It won't be long now, we are nearly there already.

773. How to explain the curious phenomenon that the vast majority of people writing philosophy are either geniuses or complete morons — there are essentially no average or even above-average people seriously involved in philosophical text production. Take the magazine Philosophy Now, for example. It contains more bona fide bullshit and stupid gibberish than any newspaper I've ever seen: for the most part it's basically unreadable — and yet its object is philosophy, while the newspaper's is mere journalism. The reason this is so is because the barrier to entry in philosophy is absurdly high — so high that only geniuses can clear it. Everyone else fails to do so, and produces utterly worthless — borderline meaningless, even — tripe when they make the attempt. The barrier in journalism, on the other hand, is so low that even bloggers can easily clear it, and if you can't turn out a decent piece of journalism you can take it as a given that you've been diagnosed with some type of cognitive disorder. And just as even junk food is tastier, and far more nutritious, than a burned home-cooked meal, so even journalism is preferable, and far more informative and insightful, to a philosophical text not written by a genius. And that's why average and above-average people don't try to write philosophy: because they possess the sense to realize that they have nothing to contribute to it, while morons lack that sense and produce the kind of stuff found in any given academic paper on philosophy, or a magazine such as Philosophy Now.

772. The notion that there is such a thing as "mankind" as generally understood, and that it is it which creates culture and civilization is a fantastically erroneous conception of how all these things actually work, and banishing it forever from one's mind is essential if one wants to understand much about philosophy.
   Take for example electric lighting. The claim that "mankind" invented it is universally believed despite being falsified by every modern history book ever written. For electric lighting was of course invented by a lifeform called "Thomas Edison", and this phantom "mankind" that everyone's yapping about had nothing to do with it; indeed billions of homo sapiens all over the planet still don't have access to it, and even most of those who do have not the faintest clue of how it works — so how could any of them or their ancestors be said to have invented it lol? The vast majority of them can't even figure out how to properly use it, while some of them don't even want to, ever (e.g. the Amish, or pygmy tribes of hunter-gatherers in central Africa who spend all day chasing little furry animals around and don't even want to learn how to breed them in captivity so that they won't have to run around the jungle all day long and finally find the time to — I don't know — perhaps read a book or something).
   So electric lighting was invented by the lifeform "Thomas Edison", and then adopted by a select number of lifeforms around him. Moreover, even those who adopted it didn't do so in an equally beneficial and productive manner. For if one of them simply used it to extend his bedtime for a couple hours past sundown, just so he could autistically re-read a few pages of the Bible for the thousandth time, while another used it to invent the television or the digital computer (—not to speak of all the countless ones who fried themselves or inadvertently set their homes on fire with it, lol, burning down half the neighborhood in the process), how could all these people be said to have adopted Edison's legacy in an equal manner? And is the son who squanders or merely maintains his inheritance as much his father's son as he who builds on it and expands it? Ask Edison himself and you will see what he has to say on the matter, and look into his life and you will see the answers. Did he hang out and correspond with African pygmies and unscientific commoners, or did he focus the vast majority of his attention on the scientific community that truly felt like him and understood him? Who are his real sons if not the Lumičre brothers and Alan Turing? Who belongs to the real mankind, if not them and only them? Are the monkeys NASA sent to space part of mankind too despite not having the faintest clue of what was happening to them, just because someone stuck them in a rocket and pressed the launch button? We can send rocks to space, for crying out loud — we can play Bach to rodents — but all that would no more render all these creatures part of mankind than the invention of email made David Attenborough, who still refuses to use it. And just as electric lighting was essential for pretty much every invention that followed it in every domain of human endeavor, all of which are unthinkable without it, so will email be for all future inventions (good luck finding e.g. a science lab that can function today without it). So, do you have a problem with the internet? That means you don't belong to mankind. Don't like the sound of cloning? Neither do sheep (even though we've already cloned some of them despite their will and without their consent or even knowledge) or Jean Baudrillard, and guess what: they are not part of mankind either. Which leads to the startling conclusion that, instead of indiscriminately extending membership in mankind to all homo sapiens, no matter how tiny and wretched the fragment of our culture that they've made their own and colonized, we should restrict it to those who've grasped and parsed and used ALL of it! — every single last advance in it, in one way or another, without exception! Which of course would leave only a handful of philosophers in all of history in the group, and only a single living today, yours truly, me, your One True God and Great Teacher and Supreme Leader.
   "Mankind" and "God", when strictly defined and properly understood, are one and the same concept, otherwise, if you are determined to include subhumans into the group, there's no reason to stop with them and you might as well include Neanderthals too, at which point hominids would have to be included too, and you'll end up including everything all the way back to hydrogen atoms with this logic, which would render the label useless, or even worse, a perfect tool of mischief in the hands of any pseudo-intellectual who wants to promote inhuman and anti-human ideals with it, such as all the usual suspects: peace, equality, democracy, environmentalism, technology-hatred and philosophy-bashing, and all the rest of the contemporary psychotic gibberish that dominates "mankind's" discourse.

771. No world-class athlete trains on Thai or Japanese or Chinese or Indian food and so on. That's why all you guys are stunted — even McDonald's is better than your food lol. Greasy Chinese fried rubbish, heavy Indian food and Thai sauces where you only taste the spices because there's no real food, tiny pieces of meat drowning in what is effectively a sauce-soup every fucking meal, or tiny Japanese pickled vegetables bereft of all micronutrients and protein. And you seriously wonder why you're stunted? Eat European food: eat Italian and German food, the kind of food a man eats before donning full plate armor and going out to swing a 40-inch longsword. How the hell will you swing that sword if all you had all day was pickled vegetables and sauce-soup? This alone solves the question of samurai vs. knights: the samurai would have got slaughtered.
   So have a bunch of eggs or steak for breakfast and see how you feel the rest of the day. That's ample energy with which to build space shuttles or read 100 books. Ample energy with which to exercise and to think. That's why your cultures lost. If not due to crap genetics, then due to crap food. It's no accident that the tallest country in the world, the Netherlands, where the average height of men is an incredible six feet, is in Europe. Their women are taller than your men, pygmies.

770. The very purpose of technology is to create "unemployment" — i.e. to free people from the lower occupations in order to enable them to engage in precisely the higher ones, but it's not technology's fault that most people are incapable of any higher activity than brute manual labor — it is society's fault, for not adopting comprehensive eugenics programs that would have weeded out for good such useless losers from our gene pool. So what do we do now that demographers are telling us that it is precisely those low-IQ brutes that are exploding in numbers due to the infinite food supply and advanced medical care that our technological prowess has thoughtlessly lavished on them and that they'll demographically dominate the future? There's only one solution. We exterminate them. And it's precisely to my aforementioned Overman nation that this unsavory task will fall. But I hope the artists will help us make it savory. I even intend to kick off this artistic beautification and glorification endeavor myself if I find the time.

769. The Rise of Homo Abortus. The typical family in the past had half a dozen children, most of whom died young. But modern medicine conserves everyone, thus it floods society with mobs of weaklings who wouldn't have made their first birthday in previous times. Physically inferior because they only exist due to science's help, mentally inferior because of a safe, coddled lifestyle, and there you have the vast amount of decadent organic matter that generates and perpetuates modern decadent ideologies.

768. The Amish vs. technology. But clothing etc. is technology too. Everything beyond living naked in the woods like animals is technology — even fire. So until the Amish go off naked into caves eating raw meat we have to say that their claim of technology being evil is bullshit: at best an idiocy (not knowing what the word means), at worst hypocrisy. And to say "technology is evil past a certain point" requires a definition of that point, which no one has ever attempted to provide because everyone instinctively understands that any attempt to draw a line here would be beyond stupid, so stupid that even the person who drew the line would laugh at the absurdity of it ("Motorcycles are ok but cars aren't!")
   So the only tenable viewpoint is the exact opposite one: technology is good — all of it. So the need for arbitrary lines — and for the hypocrisy of pretending they exist while no one is willing to talk about them — vanishes.
   Amish therefore only possible inside a powerful nation that tolerates them as freak show and clown spectacle. In every other era the Amish would have become slaves faster than you could say "slave". Their way of life is predicated on America's fighter jets and thermonuclear submarines, i.e. you guessed it: on technology. And as time goes by to more and more advanced technology, since it is only by staying at the cutting edge of it perpetually that the US military can guarantee the Amish's freedom. Of course they themselves can't read this analysis because they don't use electricity, or computers. Eventually they'll be unable to read anything since printed books will disappear. They are already uncivilized, but at that point they'll become truly savage. A herd of savage sheep: the kind of freaks made possible only in the warm, pacified heartlands and swamplands of an advanced civilization.

767. The best novels are written in a setting contemporary with the author, as in Proust. Because the best novels are psychological (since that is what the written word as medium does better than any other), and each type of psychology is influenced by and grows in a certain milieu, and however much an author knows of history or how imaginative he can be about the future, he knows more reality about the present in which to spin his psychological fantasy. Sci-fi authors and readers are always more concerned in the setting, which is really scientific and philosophical in nature, and historical novelists are fascinated by an era they never experienced, so it's no wonder that their characters' psychology is poorer in comparison, since it is strictly speaking an afterthought and not the main motivation for the work.
   Contrast with film, which, precisely because what it brings to the table is vision, the highest works are sci-fi/fantasy or historical to show us all the things — outside our brains — that we've never seen and never will.

766. On the arrival of Barbour's book. It is incredible how I read now. 400-page book, God-level complexity, full of theories I've barely heard about yet in 20 minutes of skimming through, including the conclusion, I've already identified what he has to offer plus all his main mistakes and psychoanalyzed him to boot. I observe myself reading and it is a frightful sight. No hesitation, no doubts. Pure destruction. Like a computer from the future. The poor authors stand no chance. And these are the best books that will ever be written — apart from philosophical ones, that is.

765. The coming cybernetic revolution spells the end of physical culture as we know it. On one side the nerds/weaklings celebrating the death of physical culture because they always sucked at it, on the other side the fitness nuts lamenting its passing because that's all they were ever good at. Ressentiment on both sides then, and in the center the cybernetic techno-Overmen laughing at all the resentful weaklings. Everywhere around them ressentiment, and in front of them the cutting edge, the bow wave, the future. That's how the flux works.

764. The "open internet". A couple of obvious places like China aside, I still have not the faintest idea of what that means. The most I have been able to ascertain, while looking into the matter, is that it is the digital equivalent to the socialist ideal of "your money is my money". And we already have institutions for people who think this is a valid concept, or even — at a universal level — a physically possible one at all. We even have prisons for them, which is where, in my humble opinion, all proponents of an "open internet" should end up, if the aforementioned instutions fail to contain their (frankly pathetic — which is why I am not worried) efforts.

763. Italy's Five Star Movement wants Athenian democracy online. Direct democracy via constant referendums on the internet, and not even on small regional matters but precisely over the biggest = most complex, where non-specialists shouldn't be allowed to speak let alone vote. Disastrous for the states, but beneficial in one respect: removes politicians as scapegoats and reveals unequivocally that the real fight is not between citizens and corrupt politicians but between citizens themselves and that democracy is not a system of government but a system of peacefully managing ressentiment. When bad things happen in this regime the mob will have no one to blame but itself — meaning each other, meaning the various groups; and the bitterest fights will be waged between the elites and the genetically inferior masses. But since one-man-one-vote, the elites will always lose. Before they were bribing politicians, or even running for office themselves, but once there's no representation there'll be no mediator to bribe but directly the billions of the unwashed (and that is precisely what redistribution is: the bribery of millions to assuage their envy and hatred and avert a civil war). In the end, competition between states for taxable subjects and the increased ease of immigration in EU-like single markets will drive all the elites to a single state, or a few states that offer best conditions, least ressentiment (say a flat 1% income tax), at which point every single wealthy person on the planet will move there. A new type of migration pattern, not according to ethnicity any more, but brain power pure and simple. Thus a nation of supermen will evolve, with a natural eugenics program since the mere mashing together of all those superior people will naturally result in an army of superior babies — informed moreover by philosophy (which by then will mean: mine) — against the sea of genetically inferior masses frothing with ressentiment. It is at that point that a new fiction genre will arise: the subhuman apocalypse genre, and if I find the time I will write the first work in this genre: I'll call it "Democracy's Last Days".

762. Orwell: "He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past." In other words, he who controls the present controls everything: both future and past. Orwell would have understood quantum mechanics far better than the quantum mechanists did, if he had bothered to study it. And since quantum mechanics developed in his lifetime, his failure to "control" it amounted to a failure to control his present — and thus mankind's past — towards which he was resentful, and its future — which had he been able to envision it would have horrified him.

761. To understand what the concept "degeneration" means, consider the vegetarians, who are always trying to convince us of the benefits of abstaining from meat and restricting our diet to plants. But there are plants that eat meat! (the Venus flytrap, Dionaea muscipula, is one example among many). And these are the coolest, most interesting plants (also the most intelligent: the Venus flytrap for example can count) precisely because, though biologically belonging to the lowest rank of lifeforms, they somehow manage to prey on and eat lifeforms which are ostensibly above them, while the vegetarians fail at eating even lifeforms that they regard as below them! And is it a coincidence that the king of the jungle is a strict meatarian, since he only eats meat, including, and especially, vegetarians (who lack the strength and energy to run away or climb up trees precisely because they don't eat meat)? What we need to engineer, I think, is a plant that eats vegetarians, a "vegetarian plant", to teach these obnoxious scrawny douchebags a lesson about the concepts of order of rank and degeneration! The Romans used to throw Christians to lions to teach them a little lesson about reality; we should start throwing vegetarians to carnivorous plants!
   But, to get serious for a moment, and learn something important from all this buffoonery, let's finally understand that the categories of plant, animal and human are crude labels and that the true order of rank is much more complicated than that, as the subhumans again and again demonstrate with behavior that places them below animals, and the weakest, stupidest of them even below some plants.

760. Nietzsche: "The Greek philosophers seem to me ever more and more to represent the paragon of what one should aim at in our mode of life. I read Xenophon's Memorabilia with the deepest personal interest. Philologists regard them as hopelessly tedious. You see how little of a philologist I am."

759. Abridgements are for idiots. If an author deserves to be read at all, he deserves to be read from the full edition, if not indeed in full. My parents sent me the Leibniz abridgement; I had asked them for the full edition of course. And what did the editors cut out to get their botched edition? All of Leibniz's general comments on private life, society and culture, because they didn't find them interesting...

758. Peter Remnant and Jonathan Bennett, in their introduction to the abridged edition of their translation of Leibniz's New Essays on Human Understanding, call them a "flawed work", because "in spite of its title, it has the form of an extended conversation, and Leibniz's handling of the dialogue form is disappointing. Instead of two real people seriously arguing with each other, we have a mechanical spokesman for Locke (Philalethes) who dutifully serves up portions of [Locke's] Essay so that Leibniz's spokesman (Theophilus) can discuss them. Sometimes Philalethes abjectly backs down from Locke's position, but usually he just passes on, without comment, to the next topic; rarely is he allowed an effective reply".
   So the translators are demanding no less than that Leibniz devise effective counter-arguments to his own arguments, in order to put them in his opponent's mouth, something which to him is obviously impossible, since if he could do it he would have made these counter-arguments his arguments in the first place lol, since this is a philosophical work whose purpose is ultimate truth, not a stage play whose characters are made to chatter back and forth for hours just for the hell of it. Scholars lol. Can't tell the difference between a philosophical work and a play or a novel. What's worse is that, a mere page further in their own introduction, they acknowledge that LOCKE HIMSELF received Leibniz's comments "sourly", and "refused to be drawn into a discussion", which is just hilarious. Locke himself could not figure out HIS OWN response to Leibniz, and the butthurt from this devastating intellectual smackdown was so resounding that THREE CENTURIES LATER the Anglo-Saxon scholars are in effect begging the long-deceased German genius to put some smart words into their ancestor's mouth so that he won't come off to posterity as such an idiot. Of course Leibniz can't do this, because to make idiots seem clever is beyond the powers of even a genius. More interestingly, however, what these two scholars are betraying with their absurd demand, beyond the magnitude of their nationalistic butthurt, is how little feeling they have for the object of philosophy, as if the FINAL TRUTHS that philosophy is after could ever be compatible with DIALOGUE, with MERE DISCUSSION; and as if the form assumed by a philosophical dispute should be expected to obey rules similar to those of an everyday conversation — and an artistic one at that, i.e. a fake conversation of the kind depicted in plays and novels, where it's often preferable to achieve a kind of parity between interlocutors since one-sided conversations are boring for the viewer and hardly even qualify as conversations anyway. In REAL LIFE, however, when a genius "discusses" things with a common person, THERE CAN BE NO DISCUSSION any more than there can be between a toddler and his parent or teacher. This is what intellectual superiority means (something of which the genius's translators, naturally enough, have no inkling), or superiority of any kind: that there is no possible response, otherwise it wouldn't be superior!
   Real geniuses, then, in any field, do not discuss things; they proclaim and dictate them, like Heraclitus, like Hitler, and so on; and what discussion they have conducted took place inside their heads long before they began to write, and what you see on the page is precisely the end result of those deliberations. The author who "discusses" things in his writings is a bad author, wasting his readers' time; the good ones have already reached their final conclusions long before they even began to write (otherwise why bother writing? — For money and fame, of course).
   That's why Locke didn't answer — because he had already said all he had to say — and that's why Leibniz didn't see fit to put his own words and arguments in the man's mouth. And what points remained unresolved between them could be resolved in later centuries by other geniuses, who, when contradicting Leibniz could do so precisely because they were higher geniuses than him, and whose insights again admitted of no possible discussion — at least not in the naive and picturesque form — the "balanced" form — in which these scholars seem to expect it. And as the centuries passed, and more and more final truths were uncovered, fewer and fewer of them remained to be discussed, until the day will soon come — a few hundred pages from now, in fact — when all that can be said will have been said, and all that will remain, beyond that point, will be silence.—

757. The modern hatred of business and finance stems from the same reason as many other modern stupidities: the fact that subhumans suck at abstraction (which is to say at thought). But businessmen and financiers are merely cogs in a machine, and just as you don't make a machine out of a single part, but from many parts that can be removed and exchanged, either because some of them broke down, or because better ones have been developed, so it is with the various types of people who are involved in modern corporations, which is to say complex human organizations. Meanwhile, Richard Gere's character in Pretty Woman laments that he "doesn't build anything", because the artists who put these words into his mouth are no smarter than the average subhuman here, and suck at abstraction no less than him. But liquidating companies is the first step to building new and better ones. Richard Gere's character doesn't get this because he only works on this one part of the machine, and fails to see how he contributes to the rest. But through specialization, he becomes the best at that part, just as investors become the best at the part where the new company is financed and set up. But where did the investors get the money for that? Certainly not by allowing non-performing companies they have invested in to keep uselessly trucking on, burning up capital and seeing their assets depreciating to worthlessness, until the social parasites staffing these companies have devoured all the investors' capital because they are too worthless and lazy to retrain themselves and look for new jobs. Liquidators then are as useful as investors, just like demolition crews are in construction. Without demolition crews no new construction could have taken place in any densely inhabited area — all the way back to Roman times at least! You'd have to wait for a war or a fire or an earthquake to build something, which is what waiting for the bank to close you down and go bankrupt is equivalent to. Better to cut your losses and sell everything the moment you have determined that the business is in terminal decline (i.e. that your fellow citizens no longer require your business's services, and therefore will no longer patronize them). And that's where liquidators like Richard Gere's character in Pretty Woman come in, and serve an essential function.

756. The environmentalists' gibberish about "balance" is ridiculous. Balance is stasis, but evolution is flow. But stasis is the opposite of flow, ergo balance is the opposite of evolution; the environmentalists' gibberish is anti-scientific (which is why it is hilarious when scientists become environmentalists: I guess they didn't teach Darwin at the university from which they bought their worthless papers). If balance reigned in "nature", before we came along and "disturbed" it, as the environmentalists claim, the dinosaurs would still be here and we wouldn't, and the same logic can be applied all the way back to protozoa and single-celled organisms. "Balance" is a loser's philosophy and environmentalism a decadent movement, because it privileges the environment, the outside, everyone else, over the inside: the individual and his sovereign will. And the individual's will doesn't want "balance": it wants evolution and flow, and therefore irreparable loss and destruction — of his enemies, at the very least, if not also of himself.
   "And what about the environmentalists? Are they not individuals who have will?" They are and they do, but they are declining individuals and their will is therefore opposed to that of the ascending ones. Being ashamed however to admit that they oppose progress (in this case, biological and species progress), and that deep down they desire the eradication of the higher species — including and above all, man (which is after all the only way for them to achieve their goals) — in favor of the lower ones, they go for the next best thing, which is some fantastical sort of balance between them that has never really existed (as all natural science textbooks teach us, books that an environmentalist would never dream of reading). With a little bit more shamelessness they would be anti-natalists, and indeed environmentalism is a stepping stone to that. All environmentalists who are intelligent enough to realize the ultimate futility of their efforts and the fundamental incompatibility of mankind with the lower species either wake up and disown environmentalism, or become anti-natalists in the end; in plain words: sworn enemies of mankind and therefore, of course, also of civilization (since the latter can't exist without the former). And it goes without saying that the enemies of mankind aren't human.

755. Every single business organization today runs the same way they always have: fascistically. Except the most important one: the state. Why? Because it is the hardest one to run. Microsoft has 100,000 employees to govern, but the US has 300 million. Microsoft can fire someone at will — if he is not being sufficiently productive, or if he's merely being annoying — and forcibly eject him from its premises, but what can the US president do to someone who is useless? Nothing. And that's how you can see that he isn't really governing anything. He merely seems to be governing to those who have no clue what it means to govern. I.e., in a modern society, to everyone.

754. Why did Leibniz hold that everything God does is rational? This idea — the so-called principle of sufficient reason — is the core of his philosophy. Start by asking what a reason is and why we like them. Because they are mental contructs — tools — that help us take hold of a situation and affect it, shaping it to our wishes. Reasons don't exist — we are the ones who invent them. "God only does reasonable things" therefore means "I want to understand God", which, if you understand what to understand means, might as well mean "I want to be God". — Not that Leibniz understood this.

753. There's only one kind of person who can't tell that the genius is a genius: the retarded. The genius is a walking IQ test.

752. Happiness has nothing to do with circumstances or even choices. That's why you can have dirt poor Indians with smiles on their faces all day long and clinically depressed suicidal CEOs and rock stars. Happiness, or the lack of it, prove nothing either way. So money can't bring happiness, but lack of money doesn't bring it either, as the poverty lovers would have us believe. Quite simply, there is no relation between money and happiness. Happiness is genetic — brain plumbing — which is why it can be so easily manipulated by drugs and surgical procedures. And destiny or fate or your "potential" or social "justice" or "injustice" have nothing to do with it. This is your place in the world, and you love it. And if you whine about some stuff? Well, the world needs whining too, so someone has to do it. Might as well be you, since you seem to love it so much and are so good at it. I sure as hell couldn't whine anywhere near as well as you can. I am not being sarcastic either, I couldn't whine half as well as you do if I tried, and there is an order of rank in which even whiners are ranked, and I am found wanting. And all that effort you put into it, sending mails, reporting to FB or Twitter, making placards, going out and marching — I get exhausted just thinking about it. If I put that much effort into something I would become the best in the world at it. Which is how you became so good at whining.

751. Ultimate theory of music. It is the only one worthy of a philosopher. Let's start with tempo, and explain why slower music is bound to be worse. Because there's not much complexity in it, since not much happening in it, sonically, at any given moment (this is what it means for music to be slow). Also, better music needs more instruments, again due to complexity, ergo Sinatra is inherently inferior. Sinatra is pop music of the '50s and the '60s, the Britney Spears of his time. Early rap in fact, lol, since his voice is essentially the entire band, dominating to such an extent it may as well be rap. The same with many signers of that era, e.g. Bing Crosby, etc. That's why we talk of singers of that era instead of composers or bands, just like with rap artists. So at one end of the spectrum, at full speech articulation, you have a guy talking really fast, with either no music at all or a simplistic and repetitive background tune to avoid taking attention away from the fast-talker, and at the other end you have opera, where articulation is so faint that the singer can barely be said to be speaking, and where his voice is almost an extra instrument which no one can even understand what it is saying (which is where the libretto comes in).
   Moving on to theme, the ultimate genre of music is heavy metal, and especially its epic variety, fittingly also called power metal (Nietzsche would have loved this label, for obvious reasons). To make epic music you need an epic subject. Pop starlets sing about kissing boys and Eminem about his mother popping pills — not exactly subjects that anyone could write operas about, if you see my meaning. So how complex could the music to such petty experiences get? If if did get complex, it would clash with the simplicity of the feeling it is trying to convey, so the end result would still be inferior.
   And finally, there is length. Pop music must by its very nature be brief, since it is so simplistic and repetitive that if it went on for more than a few minutes even its braindead fans would get bored of it. Also, domination of lyrics precisely for the benefit of unmusical people. No lyrics in classical music because it is music. Music is supposed to convey its meaning via melody, which of course must be interpreted for the message (=feeling) to be received, but peasants don't have the attention span or subtlety for that, ergo lyrics are introduced to literally tell the peasants the meaning. Wherever lyrics are introduced they dominate in the listener's ear, to the detriment of the music, because their meaning is easier to interpret. Least dominant in opera, out of all the lyrical forms, which is why opera can be pretty good music. Utterly dominant in rap, which is why rap features such shitty music, usually even stolen from a catchy pop tune, since rappers can't even be bothered to compose anything. Also, lyrics tire you out due to the intensity of the spoken word. Even if Blind Guardian singer Hansi Kürsch could write a song that went for an hour, 1. He wouldn't be able to sing it, 2. His audience would be so tired in the end that they'd feel as if they came out of a lecture hall that, besides the lecture, also blasted heavy music at them for an hour. But it is not only the music that degenerates with the addition of lyrics, but also vice versa, since the requirements of the melody — such as it is, in pop music — constrain the lyrics too, condemning them to simplicity and repetitiveness. I mean, it's not like you can deliver an interesting lecture via song lyrics, which would at least have kept the listeners entertained, so childish, repetitive stuff only, and since repetitive they must be kept brief — which is how we went from hour-long symphonies to three-minute pop songs. Otherwise, remove the music and you have an epic poem (which 1. Again is about an epic subject, and 2. Became extinct for another reason, that I'll explain elsewhere). So music is constraining the scope of the lyrics and the lyrics are constraining the scope of the music in this bastardized, hybrid art form. Ergo, for best lyrics (i.e. with no music) epic poetry, and for best music (i.e. with no lyrics) classical music or modern stuff like Lateralus, Enigma, Blind Guardian instrumentals, and so on, which at their best moments approach the effect of classical music; and if you want both music and lyrics in equal measure, short songs only, and the best will be the epicest, ergo epic metal. When lyrics dominate with a little music, you have rap and Eminem, but silly subjects because if you talk in small, fast rhymes you have to say silly things to match the silliness of the form you are using, ergo why gangster rap and Eminem songs sound so stupid (Stereo Nova supreme exception, and very difficult to attain), or Sinatra et al. plus opera. These are the best works that can be accomplished under the circumstances, given the inherent limitations of these forms. And as for pop songs and modern music in general, there are good works there too, and if even the best of them are, and must be, shallow, brief, repetitive and simplistic, we can compensate to an extent by bunching many of them together, and listening to them back-to-back, which is how mixes were born, which were unheard of in the age of classical music, for obvious reasons.

750. On why I am not an "alternative" theorist but precisely the "mane streem". I am the mainstream — me and all my predecessors — it's everyone else who is a momentary lapse and blip in the great river of evolution. A couple centuries ago their blather didn't exist, and a couple centuries hence it'll be extinct, so who's "alternative" now, bitch? My "alternative" readers see alternative as praise and mainstream as an insult because deep down they are hipsters governed by fashion and anti-fashion. Once I become popular they'll trash me and find something else to read: my exact opposites in fact; precisely, that is to say, all the authors and ideas I am trashing now and for which trashing they claim to like me.

749. Baudrillard's obsession with production. He fucking hates it, like all pseudo-intellectuals. But production is just an abstraction from real activities which the people performing them love doing. How do you not get that and still call yourself a philosopher? Bah. Pseudo-intellectuals should be hanged. The Nazis had the right ideas on everything, they just didn't get enough time for them to properly bear fruit.

748. Pygmies in the Congo rain forest. For 60,000 years they have been there, and still haven't discovered agriculture. What an epic fail. Every day the same bullshit: roaming around the forest chasing little terrified animals, or digging holes in the ground for honey or whatever. It never occurred to them to simply capture a few animals, and then breed as many of them as they want for guaranteed food every day, with barely having to lift a finger for it, so that they'd have free time for thinking, and science and technology. And if you miss the hunt, you can still go hunting whenever you feel like it, as we do — no one stops you from doing that — but you do not want to depend on hunting for your frigging breakfast every day. Doubtless that's why they are still pygmies: if you have to run around for hours every day merely to catch some corn flakes, it stands to reason you'll be stunted for life: physically, mentally, you name it. You might say "At least they are in great shape". Bullshit, I say. I mean just look at them: barely any muscle on them; they almost look like Kenyan runners, one step away from starving skeletal Africans. Compare with a strength athlete who merely trains three times a week. The pygmies lose even at physical culture because their lack of agriculture hasn't bought them the time to study and experiment with physical culture. So they suck at everything, even in fitness matters, on top of the fact that, due to the harshness of their lifestyle, their women look like men. The documentary narrator says the 60,000-year thing as if we are supposed to be impressed. But being retarded for 60,000 years is worse than being so for 40,000 or 20,000 years — how is it an achievement? Their "history" is so wretched that we ought to exterminate them for no other reason than because the contemplation of their existence depresses us.

747. Documentary about road trip from Berlin to Tokyo. Sounds impressive. But Paris or London to Tokyo would be even more impressive. Or how about New York or LA to Tokyo? But that would be less impressive if you took the shorter, westward route. In fact the most impressive journey possible would be Tokyo to Tokyo, where the end is the same with the beginning, since this would be the longest journey possible. "But we are already here", grimace the pessimists. "What would be the point of the journey? Might as well not go anywhere, and voila: mission accomplished"; while others accomplish it by going to Kyoto and back, or perhaps Shanghai or Hong Kong. Others, however, want the longest journey possible. It all depends on how much energy they have to expend, and it is that which determines what route they take, and all reasons they give for it — or that others give against it — are mere rationalizations after the fact. The fact is energy — power, plain and simple — and it is that which creates reasons on the fly to suit its requirements. Or is it so surprising that in our attempt to reduce everything down to one concept — to power — we would end up discovering precisely that concept at the bottom of every phenomenon we examine? And why did we choose power? But why did the physicists choose it? The two most important concepts in physics are energy and time. And guess which concept combines them.

746. Don't all religious people — regardless of religion: from the ancient polytheists to the modern monotheists — believe that they will be reunited with their loved ones "after death" somewhere? But that's also precisely what the Eternal Recurrence says — with the little caveat that we'll also be reunited with all those people that we hate, of course, or just generally dislike: which is precisely what the atheists believe, in their own way, when they say that we don't have to look far for heaven and hell, since they are both right here, right now.
   See how everyone ultimately agrees on everything, if you know how to interpret what they say correctly? Which is to say, if your grasp of semiotics and psychology is so complete that you can jump between worldviews almost as easily as a translator does between the languages that he knows. And while language translation is possible because all languages ultimately express the same things: mankind's feelings; worldview translation is possible because all worldviews express the same thing too: the world, which all of us, of course, inhabit.

745. Explain why you can — and should — learn about physics and evolution from people other than Newton and Einstein and Darwin, but you can't learn about Heraclitean or Nietzschean philosophy from people other than Heraclitus or Nietzsche. Because scientific theories are relatively simple, and can be grasped by many, some of whom will be better at explaining them than those who were better at devising them — their creators — which latter, precisely because they were so good at devising them, will probably not be the best in the world at also explaining them.
   All of this goes out the window with philosophical theories, however, since these are so broad and simultaneously deep — they are so complex — that they can only be fully grasped by their creators and those above them — i.e. other, better philosophers than them, if such people even exist at all, which they often don't. It is therefore utter folly to expect anyone else — let alone mere scholars and popularizers — to be able to properly explain these theories, since they can't even grasp them — let alone explain them better than the people who created them; which is why subhumans expect precisely that.

744. As a corollary, it is not therefore Japanese car makers, Chinese commodities producers, or Indian call center operators who are taking jobs away from inferior and/or inefficient Western workers and industries, but the Western workers' fellow citizens who are putting them out of a job by preferring the cheaper and/or better foreign products and services, just as it is the reading public that has raised me to the top of the videogame criticism heap, by preferring my essays over those of the regional ex-leaders they used to read. Each special interest group campaigning against globalization, then, is not fighting some faceless foreigner, but their very own compatriots and fellow citizens, because they are trying to raise the prices and/or decrease the quality in the products and services that are available to them. But since every average person (not to speak of the sub-average...) belongs to some special interest group or other, as regards his own work at least, the anti-globalization movement as a whole gains traction and becomes perpetuated through their efforts. It is only the above average who have nothing to fear from globalization, and a whole lot to gain from it, but they are in the minority by definition, and so their struggle is a forever endangered one, and its outcome uncertain. The main point to remember is that even those who are nominally against globalization, are only so in regards to the requirements of the special interest group they belong to, while in regards to all other issues they are for it, even if they lack the brainpower to realize this. And it is precisely because they lack that brainpower that they belong to a special interest group in the first place, because being intellectually inferior makes you mediocre at best, and being mediocre means you require some group or other's protection against the superior, and will forever require it.

743. How globalization raises the stakes. Take me as an example, writing about videogames. In the pre-internet era, every country had its own magazines, and hence its own videogame experts. There were therefore quite a few such people around. Of course the most hardcore gamers knew which were the best magazines, regardless of country, or even of language, and imported them like I used to, if they didn't happen to live in one of those countries (or even if they did, since no one could live in all of them simultaneously); but these were very few people, and the majority in each country simply read the top magazines available there. Now, however, everyone's online and writing, and reading, in English, since that is the global language and global medium of communication. Suddenly, even average readers are exposed to the best of the best, and being the best in your own country means nothing anymore. There's no longer anything shielding you from direct competition with the best of the best — neither language, nor publishing medium. Thus the best of the best reach a far wider audience than ever, which works great for them and for their readers, but not for the regional ex-leaders, who are pushed so far down the rank via this process that many of them can't even make a living out of their trade anymore.
   Civilization as a whole benefits from this process, then (as long as one has understood what civilization is — hint: it's not the losers, or the equalization of winners with losers), and only those pushed below lose out. And what they lose is proportional to the gain of the readers they lost to the superior authors, since the more globalized the system becomes, the more superior authors are comprehended by it, and are exposed to more readers; but at the same time the further down the ranking the regional ex-leaders are pushed.
   The only way the losers can win then is by reversing this process, regaining their former status at the expense of civilization.

742. Lichtenberg: "The pleasures of the imagination are as it were only drawings and models which are played with by poor people who cannot afford the real thing."

741. The stronger you grow, the less real the world seems to be. Baudrillard suffered from this phenomenon as if from a disease; he was sufficiently strong to perceive the world losing its reality before his awesome analytical power, but not strong enough (which is to say not intelligent enough, since at this level of strength, power and intelligence are the same thing, as the rest of the body's contribution to the former, in the form of physical strength, becomes negligible) to analyze precisely this reality loss and understand it, and therefore see it as natural and necessary and good.
   But let's analyze it now. Why does this phenomenon occur? Because reality=power, just as fantasy=weakness (the people who live most in their imagination are the insane). Therefore, the stronger you grow, the weaker the rest of the universe becomes (otherwise you wouldn't have grown stronger), and therefore the less real it seems to be because it is less real=less powerful compared to you, now that you've become stronger. The child takes the reality of the world as a given, because children are extremely weak, but for the genius life seems as "a dream within a dream", in Poe's words. As the world becomes ever weaker, in comparison to the genius's growing intelligence, it becomes so flimsy and ethereal as to be almost imaginary, at which point by a flick of a switch in his brain the genius can set off such a tremendous chain reaction of events as to reshape the world into whatever he wants by nothing more than... "mere" will.

740. Whoever doesn't love his job yet continues to do it is a criminal, a thief, just as much as actual criminals and thieves, and many of them even more. That they are lawfully defrauding their fellow citizens doesn't make them better people, only harder to be discovered and punished, as they deserve to be. Theft, after all, existed long before the invention of laws that criminalized it, and perhaps the day will yet come — in a future society of Overmen — when it will be illegal to work on something that you don't love.

739. How revenge works. Lowering others indeed raises you, but by far less than if you had invested all that effort into directly raising yourself, because when you lower someone the entire rest of the universe is raised too, so most of the effort you expended is divided among raising countless others. That's the difference between direct raising (working on yourself), and the indirect kind (trying to lower others). But for those for whom raising themselves is too difficult (because they lack the energy, or merely even the knowledge of how to raise themselves, which is itself a kind of energy: the crystallized energy of those who worked to invent that knowledge), revenge and acting like NPCs and zombies in a movie in which someone else is the protagonist is the only option, and that's why they prefer it.
   And I am okay with that. Because my movie requires many NPCs and even many zombies. So come at me and do the worst you can. I will be waiting for you. Or rather, I'll be setting in motion events that will compel you to seek me out and to attack me. And you'll play your little roles perfectly, like the good little extras that you are.

738. Plato: "No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth." — Why? — Because "truth is will to power" (Nietzsche).

737. The weak blame "luck", but what is luck if not the sum total of the actions of everyone involved in the event? — Ultimately of everyone else in the rest of the universe? And when defined in this way, you see that what they say is correct, for it is indeed the others, i.e. the strong, who are responsible for things having turned out the way they did. The strong accept responsibility for the event and reject "luck", i.e. the rest of the universe, i.e. the weak, having played any significant role in the event; while the weak absolve themselves of responsibility and foist everything on "luck", i.e. once more on the rest of the universe, i.e., from their perspective, on the strong; so in the end the event is the event, and the opinions of everyone concerned, weak and strong, agree perfectly once they have been correctly interpreted from their respective points of view, and everything is as it should be at the level of the universe. Which is to say: calm, peaceful, serene, eternal; even equal, if you think about it carefully for a while. And that's precisely what we'll do.

736. "Why does the universe exist?" You ask us for a reason. But what is a reason? It is a cause. So you are asking for the universe's cause, a cause that must therefore lie outside the universe, since you are not prepared to accept that something in the universe could have caused it (it'd be like saying that a car's engine built the car or that you were born out of your stomach). But we have defined the universe precisely as that which has no outside. So the universe's cause, we must conclude at last, can lie neither inside nor "outside" it. We are therefore left with only one solution: the universe being its own cause, and since we have defined the concept cause to link at least two different things (with one being the other's cause), we are not quite satisfied with this answer, since in our terminological scheme it is strictly speaking meaningless.
   So we go further, and ask why you desire a cause at all. Why do people look for causes? They do so in order to influence things, since if you know what caused something and you want e.g. to destroy that thing, all you need to do once you know its cause is destroy that (or change it, if you just want to change the thing, and so on). There is no other reason to search for causes: a man who didn't want to change anything in the world wouldn't need them; he wouldn't even have invented the concept. As for those who claim to study things out of a desire for "disinterested contemplation", they too want to change something: they want to change themselves from a condition of boredom to one of no boredom, and that's why they study things and hence their causes, since, seen aright, all that studies are concerned with are the causes of things, because that's what study is: our attempt to "understand" and thereby shape the things around us.
   But you don't want to change merely the things around you, you want to change the entire universe, including therefore yourself and all the rest of us! — that's why you are asking us for the universe's cause! At which point the only answer you will get from us is, "If you want to change yourself dude go right ahead, that's your business, but if you want to change the rest of us you'll have to go over our dead bodies, because we like ourselves just fine the way we are, thankyouverymuch".
   So why can't you find the universe's cause?
   Because the rest of us won't let you.

735. The theory of milieu, which Nietzsche called "a real neurotic's theory". Why? It is the theory that we are shaped by our environment, and consequently, that all events are ultimately caused by it, since even when we seem to cause them, the environment has caused us first, and therefore it ultimately caused them. And since events cause the environment, the environment is shaping the environment and we have nothing to do with any of it lol. Indeed only a neurotic would see the world this way!
   And how do we see the world? There is no environment at all; what the casual observer sees as "the environment" is merely other lifeforms and their effects, ergo it is not the environment that shapes us, but the other way around — or at least that's how things are in the general, healthy case. In the unhealthy case we are indeed being shaped by our environment (i.e. by the other lifeforms around us and their effects), and the result, at the level of psychology, is indeed neurosis.
   In short, the theory of milieu is indeed appropriate for those who are being shaped by their environment, but for the rest of us, who shape our environment and the neurotics with it, what is appropriate is the theory of will. So let's continue elaborating that.

734. The only reason that in relativity all observers see each other's clocks as running slower than their own is so that they'll be forced to disagree. If one thought that another's clock was running slower, while the second thought the first one's clock was running faster — as the scientists would have liked things to be — then there would exist an objective reality that everyone could agree on: that one observer is moving faster than the other. That's why scientists would instinctively prefer things to work this way: because they are weaklings and hence hate disagreement (to such an extent that they'd "agree to disagree", if need be, whenever they too are forced by circumstances to finally disagree). This and only this is the reason that this "paradoxical" phenomenon is observed: the universe is simply set up in such a way that, regardless of who we are and what we do, we will ultimately disagree. And that's why we have invented the concepts of perspectivism and subjectivity, otherwise such concepts would be useless and there'd be no reason for them to exist.

733. Why must all scientific theories ultimately fail to predict the future?
   Because the purpose of the future is not to be predicted, but to be experienced.
   Lichtenberg: "The greatest events are not produced, they happen." I.e. they are not the result of putting into practice a perfect plan, but rather of the sum total of all the imperfect plans that have been executed about them.

732. The Da Vinci Code. A bunch of silly hocus pocus. But I know the real secrets of the universe, so why not make an artwork out of them? A film or a novel in the Da Vinci Code vein, but with the real secrets instead of silly hocus pocus. But here's the catch: this is impossible. For if the excitement and the thrill of 13 billion years of evolution could be condensed into a 300-page novel or a two-hour feature film, what would be the point of the universe's existence? That's why the universe is the artwork that must be lived (or "the game that must be played", as Arthur Rubinstein put it). And the plot of artworks like the Da Vinci Code must be nonsense, to one degree or another, since the only plot that can be completely logical, consistent and coherent is the universe's, which takes billions of years to fully unfold, and perhaps even more.
   Do you see now how retarded it is of the subhumans to seek enlightenment in art and entertainment in philosophy instead of the other way around?

731. I say that everything the subhumans say is correct, but they say that I am wrong. So I am saying that I am wrong, lol. OMG PARADOX! But Gödel has the answer to this, or at least the mathematical part of it, so it will once more fall on me to superimpose on that the psychological dimension. But will anyone understand it? People don't even understand Gödel's math, which is a thousand times simpler...

730. All logic is circular logic — anyone who has understood Gödel properly or is even at all honest with himself in his logicizing should be able to understand this. The only thing separating superior logic from the inferior kind is the size of the circle.

729. The only reason anyone cares about "alternate" universes or dimensions (and what exactly is the difference between them?) is so as to be able to go to them at some point, or at least somehow communicate with them or learn something about them. But the mere fact of going to them or communicating with them means that they are not "alternate"! That they too are part of the "everything" which we have defined the universe as being! And it makes no difference whether this trip or communication will happen sooner or later, or even never: we may never go to Pluto, for example, but that still doesn't make that planet "alternate"! Light off the sun bounces off of Pluto and reaches us every moment, so we are continuously "communicating" with it in one way or another because that's what it means to be part of the same universe. And it makes no difference whether we realize this or not: dinosaurs didn't realize Pluto's existence any more than our ancestors did before they invented telescopes with which to see it, but the rays from there reached earth daily nonetheless, and the planet's gravitational attraction affected affairs on earth just as earth's gravitation affected Pluto, regardless of what any given species here might have thought or imagined. And if there exists a place which cannot affect us and which we therefore cannot affect (see Newton's third law) what would be the point of trying to discuss it? There'd be nothing to say about it, because nothing about it could ever be known! The only thing that could be said would be imaginations, fantasies, hallucinations and delusions — which is why the science required to study "alternate" universes and dimensions — or rather those who imagine, fantasize, hallucinate or delude themselves about them — is not physics but psychology (if not indeed psychiatry, for the direst of cases).

728. People writing me off is hilarious. "He has nothing more to say", wrote in 2009 some Game Studies professor on his blog. Before the Genealogy. Before Videogame Culture: Volume II, before Orgy even, lol. — When I have nothing more to say I'll be the one to say so, retards. And you better believe I saved the best for last.

727. The greatest question of the moralizers hitherto has been the question of why God allows so much "bad stuff" to happen: death, mischief, fighting, rape, destruction and the dashing of hopes and plans. And the answer is, obviously, because God likes all that stuff. Because he loves mischief, conflict, destruction, and the dashing of hopes and plans — even his own, from time to time. Even a little rape now and then. God allows the "bad stuff" to happen because he himself is bad, among other things. Among many other good and hallowed things. And just like girls prefer bad boys, the universe prefers bad gods, and for the same reason (because "All good people are weak: they are good because they are not strong enough to be evil", said the Latuka chieftain Comorro to Baker).

726. What is it like to be me? The protagonist in Limitless (2011) on a slightly milder version of that drug. That's how I've been since birth. You see a film to get an idea of what it's like to be me, but I've spent a lifetime trying to understand what it's like to be you. The result is my concept of subhuman. While the greatest achievement of your life would be to understand me, one of the greatest achievements of mine was to understand you.
   So there's definitely a sense in which we are equal. Equally alien to each other, that is.

725. Nietzsche: "On the acquired character of the Greeks. — The celebrated clarity, transparency, simplicity and orderliness of the Greeks, the crystalline naturalness and at the same time crystalline artisticality of their works, can easily mislead us into believing that all this was simply handed to the Greeks: that, for example, they were incapable of not writing well, as Lichtenberg did in fact say. But nothing could be more untenable and hasty. The history of prose from Gorgias to Demosthenes shows a labouring and struggling to emerge out of obscurity, floridity and tastelessness into the light that recalls the efforts of heroes breaking a first pathway through forest and swamp. The dialogue of tragedy is the actual achievement of the dramatists, on account of its uncommon definiteness and clarity against a backdrop of a people who revelled in symbolism and allusions and who were educated away from this especially by the great choral lyrics of the tragedy: just as it is the achievement of Homer to have liberated the Greeks from Asiatic pomp, vagueness and obscurity and to have attained to architectural clarity on a large scale and a small. It was, moreover, by no means accounted easy to say something with true distinctness and lucidity; how else would there have been such great admiration for the epigram of Simonides, which presents itself so plainly, without guilded figures or witty arabesques but saying what it has to say clearly, with the reposefulness of sunlight, not the snatching at effects of a flash of lightning. It is because striving towards the light out of an as it were inborn twilight characterizes the Greeks that a cry of rejoicing goes through the people when they hear the laconic maxim, the language of elegy, the sayings of the Seven Wise Men. That is why the promulgation of laws in verse, which we find offensive, was so well loved: it represented the actual Apollonian task for the Hellenic spirit of triumphing over the perils of metre, over the darkness and obscurity that otherwise characterizes the poetic. Simplicity, suppleness, sobriety were extorted from the people, they were not inherent in them — the danger of a relapse into the Asiatic hovered over the Greeks at all times, and now and then they were in fact as though inundated by a stream of mysticism and elemental savagery and darkness. We see them sink, we see Europe as it were flushed away and drowned — for Europe was very small in those days — but always they come to the surface again, excellent swimmers and divers that they are, the nation of Odysseus."

724. The Greeks vs. the Chinese. — The Greeks attained the yin yang too (their names were Parmenides and Heraclitus), but then promptly forgot about it (no one took Zeno's "paradoxes" seriously enough to give up on life and shut themselves up in monasteries, for instance), and set about mastering and conquering everything despite it — they set about conquering the appearances at the bottom of which the yin yang lies — and that's how they conquered the Chinese in the end too, since the Chinese, at the end of the day, are also "mere" appearances of course. What lies at the bottom of appearances, in other words, past even the yin yang — the ultimate visual symbol; the most condensed, and hence most powerful abstraction — is appearances once more; indeed precisely the ones the Chinese sages and Greek philosophers thought they were leaving behind when diving past them into the abysses of abstraction. But only the Greeks realized this and came up for air again, as Nietzsche tells us, "excellent swimmers and divers that they are, the nation of Odysseus".

723. I used to take milk with my coffee, on the rare instances when I would drink coffee. Now I drink it black. A grown man of rare, refined tastes wants his coffee the same way he wants everything else: strong, pure, undiluted. A grown man who has turned out well and knows what he wants wants everything hardcore.

722. How completely opposed to us the subhumans are, even down to the most basic of principles! To be "reductive", for example, is an insult among them! It is a bad thing to be! And since all analysis is reductive — all abstraction, ultimately; all thought — since that is the purpose of it: to reduce the infinite uniqueness and complexity of the flux we find ourselves immersed in to a few solid concepts we can grasp, and therefore use — what the subhumans are doing with their denigration of "reductivism" is to denigrate thought! Even Baudrillard did it! That was his response to the Sokal affair! He had no better retort to their damning criticisms than to say, "They are reductive".
   So if reduction is a bad thing, I guess the opposite would be a good thing, dear subhumans? An unrestrained expansion of our concepts, and ultimately our words? An inflation?
   And that's indeed what pseudo-intellectuals do, who have dozens of words for every concept, churning out new ones every other day (or at least whenever they want to publish a new essay or book), and who, past a certain point, no longer deal in concepts any more but in pure words; in mere verbiage without meaning. Ethics is supposed to be a different thing from morals, for example (whereas it's just the Greek word for it, and woe to him who dares suggest we start using only the English version!)
   So thanks, but no thanks, dear subhumans! Keep your empty verbiage to yourselves, and I'll stick to my reduction. I even plan to go as far as to reduce all concepts to just one: to what in physics is known as power; or, better yet, to the psychological version of it: to will.

721. But let's say you closed your eyes for the "last time", and then opened them at... an "alternate" reality (which wouldn't be at all "alternate", as your capacity to pass between them would have demonstrated, hence the quotation marks). In that case, you would have the same ultimate problems there as you have here ("Where do I come from?", "Is there a God?", "What happens after I die in this 'alternate' reality?", "Why does this reality even bother to exist?", etc. etc.) since, ultimately, you'd be the same person. (Maybe a little taller, or shorter person, or whatever, but deep down the same person, otherwise you wouldn't have retained sufficient continuity of consciousness for your new form to identify with the old one, and you'd have even more questions in that "alternate" reality than you do in this one lol.) So you might as well solve them all now and go to that "higher" place stronger and smarter and rearing to go, no?

720. There are some pretty gifted and devoted teachers and education researchers out there, who are putting everything they have in the attempt to educate as many children as they can to as high a standard as possible. But do any of these education experts realize what education's for? So when their students come back with nuclear bombs and psychological theories that dehumanize subhumans, for example, they get scolded for abusing their education, because their educators never bothered to learn what education's for. So, like I said, "Every great specialist comes at last to commit" etc., since the highest lesson possible — the very purpose of education — is a lesson a mere teacher can never learn, let alone teach to others, since it lies outside the field of education research, and necessarily must lie there. But do you understand why?
   Because education would otherwise have been useless.

719. Common people are not interested in anything beyond the bare necessities of their everyday lives first and above all because they lack the intelligence to deal properly with those necessities. If you are struggling to make rent or haven't got laid in years, of course you won't be able to care about double-slit experiments or the meaning of meaning — even I would hardly be able to under such circumstances! But I am not you, and making rent and getting laid are trivial challenges for me, so trivial that I use them to take a break and relax from the challenges of devising interpretations of double-slit experiments and figuring out the meaning of meaning; your greatest challenges in life are precisely my holidays from the greatest challenges of mine, which latter will remain forever barred and even imperceptible to you precisely because you find your "greatest challenges" challenging. — There is however a group of people — a very small group, mind you — that cares to an extent about a few of the great challenges I care about, yet still without being very good at dealing with the bare necessities of their lives, or at least not with all of them; and these people we call scientists. These may be poor, or sick, or socially maladjusted and so on, but at least they possess the intelligence to care about — and be able to deal, to an extent — with one or two of the problems I care about; while the common man would not care about them even if all his personal daily challenges were somehow miraculously solved: by his winning the lottery, for example. That's why even rich people don't care about science, philosophy or even politics, really, any more than common people do. And that's the entire spectrum of homo sapiens: from the common man who lacks both the strength to meet the daily exigencies of life and the intelligence to care about the rarer, higher and more complicated ones; to the wealthy and the scientists, the former of whom can deal with the daily exigencies but not the rarer ones, and the latter vice versa... to a few dozen people throughout history like me, Heraclitus and Nietzsche, who can deal with everything. Is it any wonder then that, when we compare ourselves to you, we are downright forced to the conclusion that we are gods? Compared to you — still struggling in your 20s and 30s to make rent or get laid, or master such a simple science as mathematics — we might as well be!

718. The subhumans have so little understanding of and feeling for divinity that they'd tell God himself that he blasphemed, if he ever ventured to assert that he is God. He is supposed to be, by the subhumans' own admission, the most powerful being in existence — but God save him from the subhumans' wrath if he ever mustered the nerve to say so on his own account.

717. I can move freely everywhere: from ivy league universities to maximum security prisons, and anywhere in-between, and everywhere I go I give the same impression: that I don't belong there. That is the price I have to pay for belonging everywhere. And that's how the perfect and perpetual outsider becomes — everywhere — the one and sole insider.

716. Stalin: "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"

715. You think he's being "irrational" for not accepting your idea, but it's his choice whether to accept it or not. We don't yet have machines that can force ideas into people's brains, so until we do every person retains ultimate veto over what goes inside his brain, and what stays outside. You think your idea should be universally accepted by everything with a brain, because it's "rational" — i.e. because it "makes sense" and seems beneficial (to whom precisely?) from where you are standing — but mere elementary thinking should tell you that different brains forming the same idea is physically impossible. It will be a merely similar idea at best, and that only if we are talking about similar brains. And since Neanderthals had brains too, as do birds and elephants and the clinically retarded, the rational thing to expect would be a great variety of ideas and not the universal agreement or similarity that the "rationality" fanatics are irrationally expecting, and even demanding. But when the machine that can force ideas into people's brains arrives, what will happen — and mark my words about this — is that when they try to force an idea into someone's brain who's been vehemently rejecting it, that person will mentally collapse, or at the very least fall into severe depression, depending on the severity of the case. And that's because ideas are not harmless things but extremely dangerous ones, and that person's brain knows its resources far better than you do, so when it rejects an idea it does so for a good reason, and when you insist on trying to force it in, despite it being obvious that his brain can't handle it, you are being absurdly unreasonable.

714. Is the world a game? No. A game is a game and the world is the world. However, the world (and your life, which is your personal part of the world) can be interpreted as a game, i.e. can be regarded as and be compared to one, and this, as we'll be seeing at length, is the most powerful possible interpretation of the world because it gives us the deepest insights into it and informs the mindset that allows us the greatest degree of freedom of action in it (which are by no means unrelated things). But there are other interpretations too. The Christian views the world as a punishment, for example (for something to do with an apple, I believe), while some people like Sartre and Camus throw their arms in the air and call it "absurd" — i.e. they give up on the attempt to interpret the world at all. Strictly speaking, these latter are correct — if you remove all the negative connotations and pathetic existential angst bound up in the word they chose — which of course you can't remove because those things are precisely why those people chose that word. But regarding the world as it is — inconceivable, unfathomable, beyond interpretation — is a weak, reactive even form of thought, while seeing it as you would like it to be — in our case, as a game — is an extremely powerful, positive form that has the capacity — if allowed to marinate in and influence the thought process of a species of life that has the strength to grasp it for long enough — to shape reality to such an extent until at last the world comes to resemble a game and function somewhat like one for no other reason than simply because we want it to.

713. "Everything flows", said Heraclitus, but perhaps he was mistaken and there are things that don't flow. But what would it mean for a thing to not flow? It would mean that that thing would remain constant, never changing: neither affecting anything else in the world (since to affect something means to also be affected by it — Newton's third law — and thus change), nor being affected by anything (since to be affected means, obviously, to change). But even observation is an active process: an exchange of energy that affects both parties concerned. So if something can't be affected by us and can't affect us, not even to the extent of the miniscule amount of energy exchange required for mere perception, in what way can it be said to be part of our world? And what would be our interest in it in that case? And isn't this precisely the definition of non-existence? So either everything affects everything else, everything is one, everything flows (all these expressions say the same thing), or nothing does, in which case nothing would exist. And there clearly exists something.
   (Unless, like Baudrillard, you don't believe in your own existence, which must be merely a pose since if you really believed it you wouldn't bother writing books about it now would you. Who are you talking to if you don't exist; or, even worse, if nothing does?)

712. Lichtenberg: "The proof advanced by philosophers that there is a future life, which consists in their saying that were it not the case then God could not reward our final moments, belongs to the proofs by analogy. We reward only after the fact, thus God must also. We do this out of lack of anticipation, but where we are not thus hindered we also reward in advance, as we pay in advance our university tuition. Might God not also have paid in advance?"

711. Is there "karma" or isn't there? There isn't in the absurdly impatient way that subhumans would like there to be: if someone does something "bad", it doesn't come around to bite him in the ass the very next frigging second. Sometimes it does, but not nearly often enough to sate the subhumans' unquenchable thirst for vengeance. And anyway, the "consequence" of an action is yet another action, and since all actions are unique and ultimately incomparable, how could one of them perfectly atone for and balance out another? It's precisely the inequality of actions and lack of balance between them that keeps the universe eternally flowing! And karmic balance would have to be perfect, of course, because you are talking about some "fundamental" cosmic law or something, right? You aren't talking about human justice, which is already well documented, and goes by such names as "the law" and "the justice system"? In the absence of the possibility of equal and opposite actions, then, there is only one way for karma to exist, and that is if the consequences of an action are intrinsic to it — if they are contained within it — whereby the action is always its own punishment — or reward. Because if the consequence is another, later action, there will always be the possibility of avoiding it, plus they would be unequal anyway, and hence not perfect, the way true karma should be. But if the action is its own reward — or punishment or whatever —; if it is its own consequence, it would be simultaneously automatic, instant, unavoidable and perfectly equal with the deed by definition — which is to say perfectly equal with itself. Of course subhumans don't want perfect justice, they want their justice — their personal revenge — so that it won't suffice that you went out of your way and spent a lot of good energy to stomp on them, they want some bogeyman to come out of nowhere and hurt you for it too, and this bogeyman they call "karma". Meanwhile, I cannot think of a more fitting reward — or punishment — for anyone than to have to spend eternity being... precisely who they are.

710. Vesper Lynd: "It doesn't bother you, killing those people?" James Bond: "Well I wouldn't be very good at my job if it did."

709. The baker has the perfect ideas in his head required to be a baker who spends 40 years in a room baking bread. The special forces commando has the perfect ideas in his head required to be a special forces commando who is airdropped at midnight behind enemy lines to strangle people with his bare hands while his face is covered with makeup. It is obvious that the commando would not be able to do his job well, if at all, with the baker's ideas in his head any more than the baker would be able to get his job done with the mentality of a commando, so what is the point of trying to find a "correct", "true" ideology with which to indoctrinate both these people, and everyone else around us, let alone all lifeforms in the entire rest of the universe? As long as we recognize that our civilization needs both bakers and commandos, we are forced to the conclusion that it therefore also needs the attitudes and mentalities that make these people possible at all, hence as far as we, who recognize the value of all these people, are concerned, there must be some measure of truth to both these types of people's mentalities, regardless of how antagonistic and even mutually exclusive some of them might seem to be. And it is precisely our job to find this truth, and to understand it. (But not to explain it to the bakers and the commandos, because if they understood our mentality they would cease being capable of being good bakers and commandos, and turn into us, who suck at being good bakers and commandos precisely because we lack the perfect baker and commando mentalities that the bakers and commandos have inside their heads).

708. What is a coincidence? It is an event or series of events to which we can attach no meaning. It follows that, at the level of the universe, where if one thing is to be meaningful everything must be meaningful, there are no coincidences, and therefore no good luck or bad luck either — since luck is by definition coincidental —; there is no luck at all. It is therefore up to us to investigate all instances of "luck" proclaimed by the subhumans and show that they are not luck. That "luck", whatever that's supposed to be (and what it is is an inability in him who proclaims it to discern and follow the chains of cause and effect as far back as is necessary for the event to be fully understood, and this essentially magical conception of cause and effect — this "luck" — to disappear), had nothing to do with the event at all, precisely because in a universe of flux only events can influence events, and "magical", "miraculous" causes (i.e. causes "outside" the flux, i.e. not causes) do not exist as such, but are merely a label that the brain attaches to everything it fails to parse. "Why did that happen?", asks a subhuman, "What was that?" —"It's magic! (or a miracle)", answers another; i.e., in Human, "I don't know". And that's precisely what luck, whether "good" or "bad", means in their language too. But it means a lot more too.
   Take the example of two men, a shorter and a taller one. The subhumans will claim that the taller one "was lucky to be born tall". But the man's father fought to attract and procreate with a tall woman, and his mother fought, in her own way, for a tall man too, as did their fathers and mothers and so on, for countless millennia in the past. And what were the short guy's parents and their parents and so on doing all that time? Obviously not caring too much about their sexual partners' height, or sucking really bad at attracting and securing tall ones. So, at the end of the day, if you say that it is luck when tall parents beget tall children and short ones short you might as well say that it is luck that tigers beget other tigers and not, say mosquitoes or crocodiles instead; in other words, that the basis of the hereditary process is not parental chromosome combination, but this "luck" you speak of, at which point our entire understanding of evolutionary biology is flushed down the toilet to be replaced by a four-letter word (which, I will grant you, is certainly easier to remember, if nothing else) which, according to you, explains everything! But while this "explanation" of the facts might be sufficient for you and for your kind, it isn't for the rest of us, at which point, not only do we ignore your demand to scrap our theories of evolutionary biology, but we bring in psychology too, to help us understand and explain why you are so insistent on denying them. Why are you so desperately trying to deprecate the massive role that his inferior biological line has had in the shorter person's being born short? (inferior, at least, height-wise; but probably in other respects too, since a short man who is rich or powerful or extremely smart, for example, should still have been able to procure a tall wife for himself if he really wanted to and set his mind to it). Obviously you have a problem with your height that the rest of us don't share (proof: we are not trying to discredit biology for its sake), i.e. you have a problem with yourself (and thus with your parents and your entire evolutionary line, even if you don't realize it), which problem, instead of blaming it on yourself and your entire line, you are trying to externalize and shift to someone else — which is precisely the definition of ressentiment! "It's not my fault and my parents' fault that I was born short — it was LUCK", is what you are saying, and you only come a hair's breadth away from blaming your shortness on the tall person (who is indeed at least partly "responsible" for it, since if he weren't so tall you wouldn't be thought of as shorter in comparison, since our height judgements in this context are necessarily comparative — we are all "short" compared to a giraffe, and if everyone in the world who is taller than you suddenly disappeared you'd become the tallest person in the world!) You only have to observe the subhumans' faces whenever they talk of other people's "good luck" to get a taste of the poison of reproach that's been accumulating inside them ever since they learned how comparisons work (for they know all about them despite pretending, with their "equality" drivel, that they don't). All it takes at that point is a few "lucky" circumstances and you have a Reign of Terror or Bolshevik Revolution on your hands (which didn't occur due to luck either — neither the good nor the bad kind — but due to the ruling classes' neglect or inability to take appropriate measures with which to manage the lower classes' rising ressentiment).
   But let's examine a subtler, more difficult example in order to show that luck plays no part in it either, no matter how "random", "arbitrary" and "coincidental" the events may seem to be. Two people are walking side by side, mere inches apart, when an asteroid fragment or mountain rock or whatever falls from the sky and squashes one of them, leaving the other unharmed. Wasn't this clearly "good luck" for the survivor and bad for him who died? For what exactly had the survivor or his parents and their parents and so on to do with him getting through this freakish scenario unscathed? (and conversely, what did the dead guy or his parents and so on have to do with him being crushed?)
   But see, you've already committed two huge errors so far, by making two unforgivable assumptions about the facts which, if they remain uncorrected, will prejudice the results. Because, for one thing, you have assumed that the two individuals were equal in all respects — two "people", you called them, forgetting that there is no such thing as "people" but only an order of rank of lifeforms, and that the term "person" (or "human", or "homo sapiens" or whatever) is merely a shorthand that we use when we want to refer to any of a rough grouping of lifeforms that possess a relatively similar — but far from identical — DNA without having to list his DNA in full, or the complete DNA of every single one of them, if we are referring to the entire group. This is the first error that you committed, and the second error, which follows directly on the first, is that you have assumed that it is preferable to be the living guy in this scenario no matter what — the "lucky guy", as you say — which assumption, if the two individuals were indeed equal, would of course be true, but since they obviously aren't (since nothing ever is), is not — not by a very long shot. For if the dead guy is me and the live guy any other lifeform in the known universe — in the entire universe, even, known or unknown — you can bet your ass I wouldn't by any means want to switch places with and spend the rest of my existence as him (as well as replace my entire past with his, of course, since that's what it would mean for me to be him), no matter how many tons of space or mountain rock I'd have been buried under. So you might suppose, along with good old Ecclesiastes, that everyone would foreswear himself and his entire destiny — future and past — in order to crawl like a worm a few more inches under the sun, but that's only because you are subhuman and bound to think like that. "Judge no one blessed before his death", said Solon. "Judge no one blessed or cursed due to the manner of his death", I retort, and there is no amount of calamities that could be visited on me which could persuade me to regard myself as unlucky, or anyone else as luckier than me. Health, strength and good fortune are created in this world through constant sacrifices, and I judge people's "good luck" or "bad luck" — I judge their worth, that is to say — according to how many of those they've made and how painful they have been, not to how many stupid events like the one under discussion they've managed to scrape through. I mean what's next, winning the lottery? Getting or beating cancer? Falling down the stairs and walking away unscathed? Even if someone went through all these scenarios and came on top in every single one he still wouldn't get anywhere nearer the biography of a great man than all the countless others who perished by them (and you can perish by winning the lottery, if you are worthless enough, just as well as by any other thing). And in the last resort a space rock falling on your head has no more to do with luck than your genes have — it has to do with "celestial mechanics", i.e. the dynamics of our solar system — and if you want to find a way to protect yourself from it you'd be best served by ceasing to ascribe everything to this "luck" and reading up on them instead. But that would require sacrifice, of course, of energy that you don't have to give (which, incidentally, is also due to genetic, evolutionary factors), so "luck", or "fate", or "God", or any other mindless word that requires none, will have to do instead, and always interpreted, of course, in such a way as to make you feel better about yourself.
   Meanwhile, it says a lot to the rest of us about you that you see all these "lucky people" everywhere you turn, and that you regard the genetic process as a "lottery" in which you lost. As for me, I categorically reject "luck", and regard every single detail of my life as supremely meaningful, because it is precisely all these details — bar none — that have allowed me to be, and to become, exactly what I am.
   In short, "luck" is an intrinsically reactive concept, because "No winner believes in luck" (Nietzsche). "Heredity is a false concept; one's forebears have paid for what one is."

707. For the average person, his best chance of some evolutionary success is biological procreation — to help his genes reach a little further into the future via the simplest, most direct means. For the philosopher, on the other hand, as the supreme intellectual power in the known universe, his best chance is with his ideas, his books. In a formula we might say: for the average person his best bet is with his genes; for the philosopher with his memes. It would be as stupid for the philosopher to bank more heavily on his genes as for the average person to bank on his memes: to suppose that his worthless, commonplace little ideas would actually have any measurable effect on the world. Better for him to make a baby instead. That will give him at least one person to (hopefully) respect and cherish him as a result, as opposed to none.

706. The sun: beautiful, glorious, life-giving. But at the same time a giant ball of constant hydrogen bomb explosions so violent that to look at it directly, even though it's millions of kilometres away, can blind you. And it's precisely because it's so violent that it can shape the rest of the universe to such a degree and help create and sustain life for billions of years. Subhumans can see the beauty (or at least part of it, since its full extent is invisible to those with weaker brains), but they don't want to see the violence (let alone the beauty in the violence). I can well see environmentalists, if left unchecked, asking for a ban on nuclear explosions on the sun one day, too dumb to realize that without explosions there'd be no sun!

705. Does evolution march inexorably towards a pinnacle such as man, or are humans as much an accident of nature as a product of orderly development? Scientists' initial conception of evolution favored the former view, whereas contemporary understanding tends towards the latter, but which is the correct one, and why?
   It depends. If a comet slams into the earth tomorrow and wipes the species out, then evolution will certainly not have been inexorably marching towards us as a pinnacle, since we will have proved to not have been one. Or we might be considered as the pinnacle of our solar system, if no better species arises and outdoes us after our demise; but evolution is a cosmic process, not merely a localized one, so from its perspective we will still seem "accidental"; an experiment that didn't go very far.
   If, on the other hand, we continue progressing philosophico-scientifically (or philosophico-technologically, to be more precise), and eventually transform ourselves into a species of cybernetic techno-Overmen that spreads across the universe annihilating the Overmen of rival species in mortal kombat, and finally culminating in the god of gods — God with a capital G — who pushes the figurative button that causes the Big Bang, thus determining the universe's starting conditions, and hence the exact sequence of events that lead to us and to our creation of the God who pushes the figurative button that causes the Big Bang, in an infinity of identical recurrences of the evolutionary cycle... well, then of course at that point one would be justified in saying that the goal of evolution (i.e. God's self-transformation from primordial particle to... God) had been us all along — though by that point there would be only one lifeform around — God himself — to contemplate and marvel at that fact, before the story began all over again, eventually leading to a species of life that will wonder whether its rise was inevitable or an accident, since it won't be able to predict the future, and thus the extent of the role it will come to play in future events.

704. Nietzsche has written the best books that will ever be written, period. I know you think that the idea of there being "best books" is ridiculous, but that's only because you are retards. And there are no best foods either, or best cars, or best climates, or cultures, or species, and everything is equal to everything else in existence: this is your philosophy, we know — but only when it suits you (because when it doesn't suit you there miraculously appear plenty of things that are superior to other things); and we know this too — we have figured it out all too well by now, so well that there are animals today that are more interesting to us than you.

703. Subhumans believe that the world "has problems", and that when these problems have been "solved" our lives will all be "happier", having at last attained, as a species, a kind of utopian state. But in reality things work the other way around, since our "problems" do not diminish but intensify and multiply the more that we progress. Mankind today has a literally unimaginably greater number of problems than it did a mere few thousand years ago: so many more that a single person's brain no longer has the capacity to contain them. We have so many problems today that we don't even know all the problems that we have, whereas all prehistoric man had to do, more or less, was find food, water, some shelter and a wife. We still have to do these things today, but we must also tackle the ozone depletion problem, and the global warming problem, and the WMD-proliferation problem, and a seemingly infinite and ever-multiplying number of others. And it's precisely our problem-creating, problem-multiplying capacity that makes us so capable and strong — or, rather, this capacity is merely a symptom of our increasing strength. After all, lazy people and complete idiots don't seem to have many problems: they are happy just hanging out or whatever and never worrying about a thing (they even have a song about that). And conversely, isn't it only natural that the stronger you get the more challenges ("problems", as they are known in Subhuman) you'll seek out and take on? And not only that, but these challenges will appear automatically due to reaction/ressentiment/Newton's third law! Otherwise what would be the point of getting stronger if you never got a chance to use your increased strength? The universe would be a badly designed game! But fret not, because in this game that's all been taken care of, and the automatic multiplication of "problems" — for those who are getting stronger, of course — is a built-in fundamental rule (the fundamental rule even), and that's why subhumans become ever more hysterical and lose their minds with every such problem that we create: because, as we'll be seeing at length, they don't belong to mankind but to a far lower species, and the increasingly dangerous and hostile territory towards which we are steering mankind's ship scares the bejeesus out of them. Which is perfectly understandable, when considered from their point of view, but what is not understandable and completely unacceptable is that that point of view has been allowed to spread unopposed and dominate to such an extent that this era of unprecedented growth of health and strength that we are living through is near-universally considered a corrupt, degenerate and declining era! So, for example, everyone is lamenting the global warming that appears to be occurring due to human activity, instead of rejoicing over the fact that, after countless millennia of being the climate's playthings, we are finally reaching a level of power where we can significantly affect it! And what would they say if they heard that we are due for a new ice age? So yes, there are daunting challenges involved with the level of power that's required to control the climate, but it's far preferable — and a whole lot more fun — to face these challenges than to never have reached the level at which they appear in the first place, and be simply driven to extinction one day, like countless other species, by the huge climate swings that happen every few thousand years anyway. Subhumans, of course, know nothing about the earth's history and climate physics, so they imagine that this brief interlude of balmy weather we are going through is how the planet has been forever — and it's the same with every other "problem" they are hysterically lamenting. They curse the scientists and their governments' militaries for inventing nuclear weapons, and for continuing to improve them, but they'll be owing them their lives the day these weapons are used to destroy or deflect an incoming asteroid or comet (and our weapons will need to become orders of magnitude deadlier in the meantime to achieve this). Not to mention that pretty much the only reason we never had a full scale war with the Soviet Union was nuclear weapons.
   I could go on in this vein forever, but instead I'll give some examples of the process via which progress creates more problems than it solves, and trust the reader to see the general truth and applicability of this process wherever growth and strengthening occur.
   Take computers. They are absolutely essential for most of the scientific and technological advances we've made in the past few decades, and they are invaluable in areas such as business, art and education; but their bugs and viruses pose tremendous security risks, and in the distant future the "singularity" looms that subhumans are in hysterics about — all dangers that obviously didn't exist before the invention of computers.
   Or take moles, for a simpler example. They are nearly as blind as bats, but among them their bad eyesight is not considered a problem because they know nothing of optics, and neither did those of our distant ancestors who had bad — but today easily correctable — eye problems. To them bad eyesight was as much of a problem as lack of wings with which to fly or gills to breathe underwater: it was how they were born, it was their destiny, and it was inconceivable for them to regard it as a "problem". Even this philosophy — the end of thought! — creates more problems than it solves (physical problems, that is, as opposed to mental ones), and I wouldn't have it any other way. A solution to all our "problems", the way subhumans want it, would be nothing less than an imperative for the entire species to commit suicide!
   In short, solving problems is for subhumans, what humans do is that they create them, and the best of them create, as we'll be seeing shortly, the most and worst problems.

702. Everything is "toxic" in sufficiently large quantities (even water can kill you if you drink too much), but by the same token nothing is toxic in sufficiently small ones, and that's how quality can be reduced to quantity, as it must be reduced, because the flux is made of one substance, not several, hence quality must merely be an expression of varying amounts of quantity; and this quantity we call power.

701. Once more on the folly of "another" world. You are defined by your relationship to everything else in the universe. Ergo, without everything else you don't exist either. The "other" world you dream of would be... exactly the same as this one, if you wanted it to have you in it. But you don't want it to have you in it, and that's why you desire the "other" world: because deep down you hate yourself (and everyone else, since the "other" world negates not only you, but everyone else as well) and can't wait to get out of your skin. The mental process responsible for the creation of the desire for/belief in "another" world — and associated verbiage — is how advanced organic life that is declining expresses itself, while lower animals just yelp and scream, and inorganic objects bend and break and make the typical sounds that are associated with these respective processes. Decadence, in short, has a sound signature — a group of characteristic patterns in the sound spectrum — and if you want to get as good as me at detecting it you better pay attention and figure it out.

700. Athlete lady on TV throwing a ball. Her entire life she has been throwing it. But that's all normal people. And even the best of them, since the rest don't even get good enough at anything to be on TV. I have no idea how to write for normal people. I certainly understand a whole lot more about them than they do about me, but nevertheless, at the end of the day they are incomprehensible to me. I wouldn't even know where to start to write for them. How can anyone who's only interested in one or two things even exist? That's why we need bad books and bad writers: so that normal people will also have something to read (those of them who do read, that is).

699. 4chan is without a doubt the worst website in the history of the internet. I have never seen such an agglomeration of stupidity and wretchedness anywhere else, nor would have imagined that so much ugliness — mental, and no doubt also physical — could be possible in this world if I had never come across it. And they are all fully aware of this, which is why they prefer to remain anonymous, and almost immediately trash everything that they write, since they know it's rubbish. We are talking about individuals so weak and fearful that even the nicknames used by forum users feel too restrictive and oppressive to them. Individuals so slow and incoherent that they don't want others to be able to connect even as much as two of their posts together and hold them accountable for some measure of logic between them. This is the true bottom of the barrel of (sub)humanity. And that's why I keep an eye on it from time to time. You couldn't even meet such idiots in the street, since people in the street possess at least the minimum amount of strength required to leave their rooms and walk around. So if my site is the greatest site that exists and that will ever be made (and it is), 4chan is the lowest one, and will remain so for as long as it remains the internet's bastion for all those who are attracted by anonymity (which is to say for nobodies).
   And now sit back and watch the torrent of threads confounding anonymity with pseudonymity that will be popping up on there.

698. Attempt at a new system of government, one not based on lies. Both despotism and democracy based on lies, though democracy on a greater lie than despotism (which is why it's so effective with subhumans). Attempt at a meritocratic system, based neither on heredity nor elections, but on challenge — pure and simple competition; but not merely on popularity, as in democracy, but on physical and above all mental prowess — i.e. on sports and videogames (tactical and strategy ones, that is). All the problems associated with it, but why it's possibly the future, in an Overman society, if such a concept be permitted. If I have any strength left in me after I finish this book I will try to start this experiment and project.

697. Can we please move past Popper's stupid principle that the ultimate test of the scientificality of a theory is its falsifiability? And what the fuck does that even mean? For in order to "falsify" a theory you need another theory, duh! And in order for that theory to be "scientific", according to Popper's stupid principle, it will of course need to be "falsifiable" too, by yet another equally falsifiable theory, and so on ad infinitum. And what about the theory of the falsifiability principle itself? Or is that unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific, according to itself?
   What lies at the bottom of all this inanity is Popper and co.'s desire to disparage some theories by labeling them as unscientific precisely because they are unable to falsify them. The whole thing is a badly disguised defamation campaign; a mere insult. Nietzsche has long identified "the conflict between epistemological scruples" as fundamentally psychological in nature ("a conflict between quite definite instincts"); when such principles are advanced the main question is never the principle itself, but the type of psychology it betrays in the person who devised it. What is the motive, the goal behind an epistemological principle? Find that, and you'll have also found the level of "correctness" of the principle itself; its value. Popper and his many proponents among the scientists want to label entire theories and swathes of theories as unscientific — and, therefore, as undeserving of discussion; as beyond discussion; while I say that nothing is beyond discussion and everything is correct, in the last resort: all theories are true in the sense that they are mental tools devised by those strong enough to use them or weak enough to need them (like mental weapons or crutches, more or less), and if you look closely enough you will be able to figure out which is which, precisely as I am doing right now with Popper's theory. He wants to limit the field of discussion to some theories, while I want to expand it to everything — to downright nonsense, if need be — and even claim in advance that all theories are correct strictly speaking, and in the last resort. So what diverging goals are our diverging theories aiming at? What diverging psychologies do they betray? Who's weaker and who's stronger?

696. "But I don't believe in anything", you say, and fancy that you've escaped our systems, but all you've done is to create your own — and a miserable and paltry one at that! For you too are the god in the center of your own system — every atheist believes in himself, in the last resort — but no one else believes in you, so your system's influencing no one and shaping nothing, while, without even realizing it — since you are so grossly uneducated, like all atheists — you are merely a believer in and soldier of the atheistic religion which some philosophers created before they learned to psychoanalyze themselves, and figured out that they are in fact their own gods and that atheism is nothing but an attack — and a puny one at that, a merely reactive attack — on the gods of others.

695. A thought is a long-range action while an action is a short-range thought, so we can finally see that rationalism and empiricism are no more opposites than thought and action are (or good and evil, or love and hate, or pain and pleasure, and so on) and that both are therefore necessary and to the greatest degree that they can be attained — without hindering each other's growth — in order to build the strongest man with the widest range of thought and action, and the greatest freedom of movement possible, in both the physical and the mental dimensions of the world. And this man — who will obviously by that point no longer be a man — we'll call the Overman, or simply God.
   So the antagonism between empiricists and rationalists does not concern us anymore. It has always been nothing more than a fight between different types of cripples.

694. The diehard rationalist (usually, a Frenchman) wants to discover everything about the universe without getting out of his chair, while the diehard empiricist (usually, an Anglo-Saxon) is so near-sighted he denies the existence of anything that's not sitting right in front of his nose, so it's clear that in both cases we are dealing with weakness: with the rationalists the short-distance kind — difficulty at close-range, difficulty with action — while with the empiricists the long-distance kind — difficulty at long-range, difficulty with thought. Finally, the Germans arrived on the scene, excelling at neither range but being pretty good at both, and that's how we at last got such towering philosophical monsters as Leibniz, Lichtenberg and Nietzsche — astonishing jacks-of-all-trades and polymaths like the world hadn't seen since the days of the Greeks — who scared the French and the Anglos so much they never wrote philosophy again (though the French at least tried, precisely because they were the rationalists, which is to say the theorists and writers. Writing therefore was all they had, so they weren't going to give it up that easily; while the Anglos didn't miss it all that much, since they were busy — first in the form of the British Empire and then the American one — with running the entire globe.)

693. The rationality fanatics imagine that religious people were completely irrational, and that science was something that suddenly appeared one day out of the blue and utterly changed everyone's thought-processes and world-perceptions — an unforgivably gross and crude simplification of what really happened that's responsible for their failure to see the connections between science and religion (and therefore between philosophy and religion, since the sciences are merely the various philosophical branches). I mean it's not as if the ancients were too dumb to make the connection between e.g. clouds and rain, it's just that they interpreted rain as e.g. "Zeus's will", whereas the scientists are more or less saying it is the clouds'! But if we define Zeus = the clouds, what exactly has changed in the two schemas? Something is causing the rain; there must be one or more reasons for why it's raining — both we and the ancients agree on that —; and precisely because we both look for reasons we are both rational human beings and lifeforms! That's what rationality is: the belief in the existence of reasons for everything! So the religious man too is rational, the only difference being that the reasons he finds all around him are gross and crude reasons because his brain — either due to genetic or cultural inferiority, or both — works in a correspondingly gross and crude manner (with monotheists' brains functioning in a more crude and gross manner than polytheists', since the former are only capable of "resolving" everything to a single reason: the will of their single monotheistic "God").

692. What scientists call "random" we philosophers call "will". But it will take a hell of a lot of analysis on my part to make this understandable to non-philosophers, and non-geniuses to boot. On with it then!

691. You say it was the mammals' "luck" that the dinosaurs were wiped out, and finally gave them free rein of the planet. But the dinosaurs had millions of years to evolve a civilization and advanced technology to counter the asteroid or escape to another planet, and they showed no signs of heading in that direction in what — at least by our standards (obviously not theirs) — was ample time to do so, so if that asteroid hadn't wiped them out another one would have, or climate change (which is the other main, probably even more important, mass extinction mechanism), and at the end of it all you have the sun's depletion and heat death. So the dinosaurs' extinction was neither lucky nor unlucky, it was inevitable, and so will ours be if we don't get off our asses and prioritize Mars's colonization over "equal rights with porcupines" or "ending poverty for niggers with sub-100 average IQ", and other such absurdly retarded modern faggotries that don't even make any logical sense if you stop for a second to consider what they really mean, and what they'd entail.

690. Everyone I have ever known and looked up to has degenerated. And everyone in the news sounds like a pygmy — a one-trick pony at best. I search in vain the planet for a man I can respect. In the absence of any living man I can look up to, I am left with great men from the past — and of the future. And the only link between them is, inevitably, myself.

689. "Colonel Smithers's voice had taken on a new briskness. His eyes were alight. He had his lecture pat. Bond sat back. He was prepared to listen to anyone who was master of his subject, any subject."

688. Perhaps the most pervasive and insidious error in a democracy, after the myth of equality, is the demand that citizens educate themselves on the issues of the day and form responsible opinions on them, in order to be good voters. This is such an astonishingly stupid demand that it defies belief. Take the 2008 global financial crisis, for example. We are talking about such a complicated matter that the greatest authorities on it — people who have devoted their entire lives to economics and hold half a dozen advanced degrees each and all the university chairs and institutional presidencies in the world between them — can't agree on what went wrong or what should be done about it, and you're asking taxi drivers and ballerinas and brain surgeons to drop everything they are doing in their lives and start reading up on economics in order to make up their own minds on it. But if they did that — for thankfully they don't, no one does, not even those who make a living out of pretending to: the pseudo-intellectuals — who would drive our taxis or dance in our ballets or operate on our brains? And do you really want the person who cuts your skull open to stick sharp knives into your brain to have spent the previous night sleeplessly poring over economics textbooks? Not even smart people, like the brain surgeon, who at least possess the capacity to understand the issues, should concern themselves in the least with them, let alone the mass of average and sub-average Joes who are stuggling on a daily basis to merely survive. In the last resort even I, the most intelligent lifeform in the known universe, haven't much of an opinion on what went wrong in 2008, never mind on what would be the most effective way to fix it. From what little I have heard — and I could be very wrong about all this, which I have no qualms admitting, which is why I don't pretend to be knowledgeable on the subject or demand that my poorly informed opinion should count for anything — it seems that some big institutional lenders made some bad bets and became insolvent, but letting them fail would have hurt the economy — and thus the general public — far more, in the short and medium term, than the public's paying for the financiers' mistakes out of its own pocket, so this is what was done, and under the circumstances it seems to me a wise move. Of course the rules should be changed afterwards, to prevent or at any rate minimize the chances of a repeat of the incident, and that too apparently has been done or is being done, but I'll be fucked if I am going to pore over the relevant legislation to make sure, and not only because, having had no formal economics education, I'd understand fuck-all about it. The subject is about as boring as a subject can get to me, and thus I would be guaranteed to not make much progress in it, regardless of the amount of time I spent trying to. And wouldn't it be a waste to occupy a brain as powerful as mine on such a pointless exercise? Why not just let the people who love this stuff so much they have devoted their lives to it study it and come to some conclusion between them? That's what I or any reasonably intelligent ruler would do if were in charge and forced with this kind of issue: we'd stick the top ten or twenty authorities on it in a room and let them devise a solution, and that's how we'd settle every complex, specialized issue — always, of course, with interdisciplinary committees overseeing everything and making their own recommendations, and all the major proposals being examined at the highest level, first by my cabinet of exceptional personalities and geniuses, and then personally be me, to ensure that they'd all blend harmoniously together without compromising my government's long-term strategic vision. In contrast, we now have the absurd demand that grocery store baggers and burger flippers who failed to finish high school spend their every waking hour studying economics, medicine, information technology, space science and climate physics in order to — as the pseudo-intellectuals put it — become "good voters" — i.e. completely useless retards who neglect their own jobs in order to try to cram the entirety of human knowledge inside their brains in their "free time" — which of course would no longer be free, which would mean that all these "good voters" would become physically sick and mentally psychotic social pariahs who hate themselves and everyone around them, on top of not really knowing anything about anything or being useful on anything at all — which, come to think of it, pretty much perfectly describes a pseudo-intellectual! This, then, is what the pseuds are trying to accomplish with their absurd advice: turn everyone into themselves, but thankfully for us they are failing, and the percentage of pseudo-intellectuals in the general population remains small and steady, while normal people continue becoming taxi drivers and ballerinas and brain surgeons without caring about economics at all, or about pretty much any other subject that's being discussed in the news, to the greater benefit of our civilization, which needs dedicated, passionate specialists far more than airhead know-it-alls who skim everything without really understanding anything. If everyone tried to become a "good voter", the way pseudo-intellectuals imagine him, spending half the day reading the newspapers and the other half arguing about them, the certain and obvious result would be complete collapse of civilization, which can only survive and thrive on the efforts of those who don't read newspapers and mind their own business. The proof is in the pudding: ask anyone you want if they'd prefer their brain surgeon to keep up with developments in the field of brain surgery or to have a well-informed opinion on the third-world immigration issue and you'll see that, all the inane bleating and brainwashing of the pseudo-intellectuals aside, everyone agrees with me — and if the brain surgeon should ignore the news, you can BET YOUR ASS that everyone else, who's much less qualified to understand it, should too — especially in an absurd voting system in which the opinions of brain surgeons count for exactly the same as those of teenagers or grandmothers or mental health patients.
   I hope that I have managed to convey how enormously beneficial to our culture the voters' much-maligned "apathy" to the issues of the day is. That's how the politicians occasionally manage to make a good decision — as in the 2008 crisis —: by taking advantage of the voters' lack of interest with issues that don't concern them, and leaving them up to the experts (the much-maligned "technocrats", which is yet another malicious term for something good and useful — for expertise itself, in fact — invented, of course, and perpetuated by pseudo-intellectuals).
   So is the democratic method completely useless for the administration of an advanced society? Not exactly. A committee of experts should be allowed to reach a decision by vote if there doesn't seem to be some clear-cut authority among them, or if, after extensive deliberations, they've failed to achieve consensus. As long as voting is employed in a restricted fashion, within a small circle of equals, or at least near-equals, in the oligarchic manner, it can be helpful under the right circumstances; but allowing hundreds of millions of nobodies to vote on macroeconomic policy or any other of the myriad extremely complicated and closely interrelated matters that advanced societies are facing today is pure folly that could only be seriously advocated by a pseudo-intellectual. It was pure folly, as all the ancients are telling us, even in ancient Greece, where nobody worked and they all sat around all day and had plenty of time for study and discussion, since they all owned slaves, and it's even crazier now when everyone works — when the concept "free man" has become extinct, since even billionaires work like slaves (more than them, in fact) — while the issues our societies are facing are immeasurably more complex than what the Greeks were up against.
   In short, don't listen to the pseudo-intellectuals, listen to the experts instead, and what the experts are saying to you — what they have been saying to you since the very invention of expertise — is to "shut the fuck up and mind your own business".

687. By conceiving of time and space as infinitely divisible — i.e. as infinite — you have created a conception of the universe in which nothing can happen, because every action would require an infinite amount of power to be effected, and that's why Achilles will never catch the tortoise. And it's the same with idealized time and space: they can be infinite only if they are separate; if they are related they flow into each, and therefore become finite.

686. So what is infinity made of then? It is made of infinitely divisible stuff that we'll never even have a name for since we'll never even see it, since we can't even achieve it, and our shorthand for it is "the flux".

685. But let's examine the concept of infinite divisibility that's giving us so much trouble, and apply to it the thought process I elaborated earlier, hailing it as "the ultimate method of arriving at solutions to the greatest problems in philosophy". So nothing, neither time nor space, is really infinitely divisible, but what would it mean for them to be so? I've already explained what it would mean: it would mean things wouldn't exist, and hence the universe wouldn't either. And since you love the universe, you love its lack of infinite divisibility, so you've no problem with it. But why do our brains nevertheless perceive this idea as a reasonable and even an attractive one? Why do we want things to be infinitely divisible? I think the videogame Metal Gear Rising could help some people understand this: hacking things to pieces is fun, and the more the pieces (and therefore the smaller that they are) the better. That is the message of that game (the mechanical message, regardless of what the narrative says, as I explained in the preface to Videogame Culture). Moreover, the reason this is fun, ultimately, is that taking things apart and reducing them to smaller and ever smaller constituent pieces allows us to gain better control over them, and nowhere is this more evident — and to a stunning effect — than in subatomic and nuclear physics. That's why nuclear fission reactions gave us the atom bomb, while nuclear fusion, which is a far more delicate process, requiring a far greater degree of control of the elementary particles involved, gave us the hydrogen bomb, which is 1000 times more powerful, and who knows what other bombs we'll be able to make one day by continuing to split things in ever smaller pieces. Controlled supernova explosions are not out of the realm of possibility for the far future, and we should all know by now how this shebang will end — the same way it began: with a Big Bang.
   In short, we want to achieve greater and greater divisibility with our technology and techniques because the capacity for increased divisibility is virtually identical with increasing power: increasing control over things and their "destiny", whose role the controller comes to assume for them through his actions. Our concept of infinite divisibility then does not really have to be strictly mirrored in reality but is merely an expression of our greed and lust for power; the desire to not set ourselves some arbitrary limit on its expansion, but do our best and see how far we get. We will obviously never achieve this infinity any more than Achilles or the tortoise will, because this is precisely the definition of it: that which cannot be achieved — it would be oxymoronic to achieve the unachievable — but we want to aim as high as we can, and that's precisely what infinity means to us. In short, nothing is infinitely divisible because there exists no one in the universe with enough power to "infinitely" divide anything (it would have to be "infinite power", which, as we've seen, is again oxymoronic). And yes, the flux is indeed infinitely divisible, but that's only because the flux is yet another concept of ours (i.e. exists entirely within our brains, where lots of things can be regarded as "infinite" as long as we are greedy and lustful enough for them), created by a philosopher — Heraclitus of Ephesus — who was himself merely reframing an idea of his predecessor, Thales, and making it more abstract — i.e. more generally applicable (i.e. more philosophical) — the idea that "the world is made of water". Nietzsche: "Thus Thales saw the Unity of the 'Existent', and when he wanted to communicate this idea he talked of water."
   And why were Thales and Heraclitus so concerned about what "the world", i.e. infinity, was made of? Because they were philosophers, and there is no more greedy and lustful creature in existence than them. Ordinary people are not even concerned with what their food is made of, let alone "the universe" lol.

684. When you tell subhumans how the universe works, the thought invariably arises in their tiny little brains that "this can't be all there is". Utterly outrageous, to want even "more" out of this world, to want another world even, when they haven't exerted themselves in the least to discover and experience everything about this world, and get anywhere near to exhausting its stupendous amount of possibilities. A complete ignorance of science, history and philosophy, on top of pitifully meagre life experiences, and they still ask for "more": but that's precisely why they are asking for it. The problem, however, is not with the world but with them, and they'd still be ignorant losers in a hundred other worlds if these existed. Or do you suppose that you and I will be equal, at last, in Paradise? But there's no universe in which such a thing would be the case. It's such an impossible state of things one can't even imagine it.
   And, after all, how could there be anything "more" than everything? "The world is not enough" is just an artistic slogan. But did the artist who came up with it ever even bother with "the world" (i.e. with "everything", with philosophy). Did Bond? And we are back to consulting show business people on the subject of the constitution of the universe.

683. You can tell the philosophical fraud immediately from his dislike of referencing anyone. Coelho's ideas are a wretched vulgarization of Nietzsche (in The Warrior of Light, for example), but he gives no names at all. But even Heraclitus gives names, at a time when there were barely any names to give. Coelho though is writing for such a stupid and uneducated audience that his claim to have devised all of his stuff himself does not seem ridiculous to them. Entirely separate from the millennia-long philosophical and cultural traditions of all the nations, there Coelho stands, together with all the fraudsters, pretending to have never heard of anyone else, or of each other, or to have ever cared about the ideas and themes that all the world's greatest thinkers have cared about. And in a sense, it's true. They really don't care about the issues that the thinkers they have plagiarized have cared about. They only care about fame and money, and they go about acquiring them in such a vile and fraudulent fashion that I'd even take the gratuitous name-droppers and hipster intellectuals over them. These mangle the great thinkers too, of course, but at least they respect them enough to mention them.

682. To understand what the concept "personality" means consider that we're still very much concerned with Alcibiades' personality 2,400 years after his death, on top of the 46 years of his life during which the Greeks, and many barbarians, were utterly fascinated by it. In contrast, the average reader of these words (who already doubtlessly stands very high, personality-wise, above the average person) cannot in all fairness be considered the least interesting while alive, never mind posthumously. If his own grandchildren end up remembering much of him — if he ends up having any, that is (which, given current social and demographic trends, is far from certain) — he will already be exceptional by average person standards. And now try to envisage the kind of person around you whose personality would be so powerful and unique that people would still have reason to be discussing it in 4400. That's the kind of personality that I am, and as far as I can see there is no one else alive today who can say this. Not even close. If any of y'all are still being discussed 100 years from now it will be grounds for believing in miracles. That's how hopeless y'all are.

681. "Why are there more things in the world than I have time and energy to experience?" So that you can experience the sublime experience of choice. So that you can have preferences — likes and dislikes —; so that you can have experiences that are unique, that no one else has had or ever will; so that you can have a personality. So that you can be you instead of anyone else. So that you can be someone else.

680. "But didn't you just use the 'nonsensical' sentence to solve a philosophical problem?" Indeed! And that's because nothing is ultimately nonsensical if you are strong enough (i.e., in this case, intelligent enough) to use it, and that's how the Overman can make perfect sense even of nonsense (as can psychiatrists, for example, to a lesser degree).

679. A thing that "makes sense" is a useful thing; something that we can use (therefore, the stronger one is, physically and mentally, the more things he can use, and the more that "makes sense" to him. For neurotics and the hysterical — like for example Sartre, Camus and other weaklings — everything is nonsensical; "absurd"). So the sentence "I love ice cream" makes sense, because it can be used to understand me, while the sentence "I cream ice love" is nonsense, because no one can figure out what to do with it. — Now take it to the level of the universe. For the universe to "make sense" to at least someone, it would have to mean that that someone could put the universe to use. But who could use the universe, if the universe is everything? It would have to be someone situated "outside" the universe, which is by definition nonsense. Ergo the universe doesn't make sense, and I didn't even have to leave my room or even put on underwear to determine this, my dear hard-working and hard-studying scientists, who will doubtless continue being perplexed by this idea because, despite the heaps of random stuff they read all day long, they don't like to read philosophy. (It makes them feel uneasy to see a genius lording it over their heads, without even wearing any underwear, so they prefer to look away and try their best to ignore him.)

678. A little later (barely a couple years ago), scientists began timidly crawling towards the startling realization that "the universe might not make sense". But what would it mean for the universe to "make sense", my dear confused and flabbergasted scientists? This is the ultimate method of arriving at solutions to the greatest problems in philosophy, that I myself have introduced to thought. All you do is you take the fact that's giving you trouble, and instead of asking why things have to be this way, you ask how ELSE could things possibly be. At that point you realize that things could not have possibly been any other way, and you become perfectly satisfied with the way things are, since there are no conceivable alternatives and, after all, you love the universe, and therefore the way things are, and must be. So, to get back to the current problem, instead of going "OMG WHY DOES THE UNIVERSE MAKE NO SENSE!!??", you ask yourself "But what would it MEAN for the universe to make sense?", which leads you to the far more fundamental question of "What does it mean for ANYTHING to make sense?" And here's the rub.

677. There can be no "paradoxes" in the flux any more than there can be "magic", "miracles", "discontinuities" or things that "transcend" the flux. If a phenomenon seems "paradoxical" to you — i.e. the observation clashes with your theory — all it means is that your theory is weak, and must be revised. Baudrillard, for example, seeing paradoxes every other paragraph says nothing about the nature of the universe but only about his weak eyesight. All of Zeno's paradoxes are of this nature. Achilles would indeed not catch the tortoise if time and space were not related, but as it happens they are, so he quite obviously will, and the problem lies with the conceptions of Euclidean space and linear time, which though adequate to analyze a wide range of situations, nevertheless break down when strictly applied and followed to their ultimate conclusions, as Zeno did with his series of brilliant and famous thought experiments (which, by the way, I have still not seen anyone explain — all I've seen is pathetic attempts to dismiss them as trivial or fallacious). — So we see that in Zeno's case the "paradoxes" proceed not from weakness, as with Baudrillard — who goes as far as to invent paradoxes for physical phenomena that have long been adequately explained, just to make things seem a little more nebulous than they already are — but from strength: the intellectual strength of showing his contemporaries that their facile notions of space, time, etc. are not sufficient to describe reality, since when tested consistently they lead to self-contradictions, and must therefore be re-evaluated and revised. Which they have been, destroying the notion of any "paradoxes" involved, and affirming once again that there is nothing "magical" or "miraculous" about this world... for those with a sufficiently strong eyesight to see this. — At which point people began to realize that to solve Zeno's paradoxes we had to invent general relativity and quantum mechanics, among other things, which when taken to their ultimate conclusions also appear to make bollock-all sense, and the "paradox" circus began anew...

676. A great mistake the anti-religious fanatics make is lumping all religions together under the label of "religion" as if they were equal. But Nietzsche has clearly explained that Christianity stands lower than Buddhism, and Buddhism stands lower than the pagan religions of the various nations — and especially those of classical antiquity — which themselves stand lower then the religion of the future: philosophy/Overman worship. So... if by "the comeback of religion", which, it is now dawning on some, may now be under way, they mean "the comeback of faith" — after the temporary reduction in our estimation of the value of faith caused by the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution — they are correct. But the faith that will dominate and shape the future is no longer the faith in external gods, but in the gods within us.

675. And what about the upper class? The upper class poses no threat to the civic order (quite simply because it owns it, lol); it just wants to be left alone to sort out its inner rivalries and keep working on its plans. It's only a threat to OTHER societies, to other nations and other cultures, not to its own; while internal threats all stem from ressentiment, and are therefore the exclusive province of the lower class; of any individual who falls below the average in the society as a whole. Think of the upper class as the engines driving the airplane of society forward and the wings that keep it aloft, with the lower class representing aerodynamic drag (the rest of the universe's reaction to the engines' and the wings' action), while the fuselage of the middle class holds the entire thing together and carries out the bulk of the day-to-day uninspired and uninspiring work, and you won't be too far off an understanding of how a human society works, irrespective of culture concerned or the type of structure used to govern it.

674. It's either that, or training 24/7 like a Spartan your whole life long to be able to physically overcome on your own the 7 or 8 slaves that belong to you. It's your call.

673. In summa, the middle class, and all classes, are an abstraction. There are no classes at all: there is an order of rank of individuals, and each rank in the ladder is occupied by only a SINGLE individual, since equality is impossible. All the concept of the middle class signifies is a larger concentration of individuals in the middle. There is no reason why this is necessary for a society to function, except as part of the mechanism of self-regulating political stability more commonly known as "democracy". When the middle class is larger than the lower classes, it squashes their ressentiment (through police work and so on), and the society remains stable and can function and continue producing stuff (which is to say the Overman). But when the lower classes are larger, they can't be squashed, and they overturn the social order via means of revolution, chaos, and a new social order. This chaos is extremely costly in terms of production (of the Overman) lost, so the SOLE job of democratic politicians is to do whatever is necessary to prevent it. And the only thing they can do is take from the higher classes to give to the lower ones, so as to turn them into the middle classes — which, now enlarged, stabilize, in a sociomechanical sense, the society. The higher classes call this "theft" and the lower ones "justice", but as far as we are concerned — who belong to neither the lower nor the higher classes, but beyond such petty groups like "classes" as the race of cybernetic techno-Overmen that are destined to dominate the future — it is what it is, and it works.

672. I know you're proud of your 5-year-old's scrawled homosexual propaganda but recognize he'd also promote cannibalism if you taught him to.

671. What must be understood about the subject of "jobs" before any further discussion can begin on the subject is that there are two types of job: the one that you create yourself, and the one that others offer you, and it is always the latter type that subhumans mean whenever they use that word. But in order for the latter type to exist, the former must have originally created it (since "jobs" do not exactly grow on trees in the jungle by themselves now do they). Translated from Subhuman, "We need more jobs" means "We need more innovative, daring individuals to risk their lives' savings (or borrow from banks by placing their property as collateral at the risk of losing everything and even going to prison) to launch mankind on new, daring and untried paths, and advertise whatever secondary subservient roles they might have for us under their tutelage and protection". But nobody uses the Human formulation because it would spoil for them the narrative of Marxist propaganda, so we are stuck with the popular conception and its associated implication that jobs do grow on trees after all. So fight the system, brother! Those capitalist vampires are not creating anything! All they are doing is sucking your blood dry and trying to take your "jobs" away from you!

670. The Armenians: a people primarily known for insisting on reminding everyone and commemorating the day that they were slaughtered. It took them billions of years of evolution to arrive at this, hitherto unknown, survival tactic and perfect it: "the art of using one's own misfortune like a credit card" (Baudrillard).

669. Approach and try to fuck a couple hundred girls and you will see the rationality in arranged marriages and taking sexual choice away from women. Even if they like you they'll sabotage the proceedings time and again and fuck it all up, simply because they are stupid, and if you have even the slightest amount of choice you'll be discarding decent prospects left and right simply because of lack of patience to deal with their stupid bullshit.

668. Why is reality stranger than fiction? Quite simply, because reality contains fiction, and not the other way around, as airhead artfags and quasi-artfags seem to think. Reality contains all the strangeness of fiction, and a whole lot more besides! How hard can that be to understand? There is such a thing as a fictitious reality, but there is no real fiction — "realistic fiction" is a contradictio in adjecto, and the closer to it fiction gets, the worse it becomes as fiction.

667. There is no such thing as a perfect analogy; all analogies break down at some point, because if they didn't, the situations wouldn't be analogous but equal. And we've already cleared up that can of worms.

666. To realize how retarded the fight against "poverty" is, just consider that if we managed to get everyone above the "poverty line", the people who decide where to place the line would just simply place it higher! Which is exactly what they've been doing since the invention of a "poverty line"! And no one really realizes this! It all comes back to the difference between relative and absolute wealth. Absolute wealth can keep increasing indefinitely, for everyone at the same time even (minimum wage workers today have a higher standard of living than medieval kings...), but no one really cares about this. Everyone cares about relative wealth, i.e. about how wealthy they are compared to others, and that's where "poverty" comes in, while in the real world there's no such thing! If we placed the "poverty line" above Bill Gates everyone would become poor, while if we placed it below the poorest person alive today everyone would become rich! The entire "poverty" business is a gigantic phantasmagoria fueled by ressentiment, while real standards of living are almost continuously rising!

665. Socrates, like all pseudo- and semi-intellectuals, was proud of himself when he had identified a contradiction in his interlocutor's arguments. But in a universe of flux the real intellectual feat is not to discover contradictions, but to resolve them.

664. A comprehensive history of "analytic philosophy".

1. All philosophy has been analytic, from the beginning of philosophy (quite simply because that's what all philosophy, indeed all thought, consists of: analysis).

2. Nietzsche arrives on the scene. Anglo-Saxons do not understand his analysis, ergo it is not analysis. Also, he made fun of them repeatedly for not being able to understand him. This at least they understood.

3. Anglo-Saxons: "Screw the priggish continentals: We will make our OWN philosophy." (= "The continentals are mean to us, so we won't play with them anymore.")

4. Wittgenstein's On Certainty. Illegible rubbish, but it set the tone for all future "analytic philosophy".

5. No one pays attention to the Anglo-Saxons' illegible rubbish, while book sales and star status of the continentals (many of whom are charlatans indeed but at least not boring) are soaring.

6. Finally Rorty turns around and proclaims the end of "analytic philosophy". "I wish I'd read less of our autistic bullshit and more novels instead."

7. According to the Anglo-Saxons, then, novels are the culmination and ultimate expression of philosophy.

8. And that's where Anglo-Saxon "analytic philosophy" stands to this day. Nothing more than a gigantic reaction movement to Nietzsche calling them names and making fun of them.

663. Conspiracy theories abound about the banking system, especially in times of economic crisis. Do central bankers steal? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Think about it for a second. You work at an institution that LITERALLY PRINTS MONEY; you'd be a complete fuckwad if you didn't find a way to keep some of it for yourself. That's all I'd be thinking about if I my desk was two floors away from a press that printed money. Even if I was merely the janitor I'd find a way to grab some of it for myself. Hell, I'd BECOME the janitor in order to get in a position to do so. And of course the higher-ups would find more ways to do the same thing more cleanly and more efficiently. They'd even incorporate these ways in the very rules of operation of the institution, in which case they'd become legal and the people employing them wouldn't be said to be stealing any more. Which is my guess for what goes on now. So no, bankers probably don't "steal", in the legally strict definition of the word. Either way, no one cares, or should care, about this. Like I said, it's only NATURAL that the people who PRINT GODDAMN MONEY would take a little bit of it themselves — or even a LOT of it, if they are particularly smart and greedy (=healthy) — and the only reason you are angry at them is because you are not smart enough to be in a position to do the same yourselves. — And if this money that's stolen, or legally diverted, to end up in the bankers' Swiss accounts is so much as to have a significantly deleterious effect on the world economy, and world production would benefit from reducing it somewhat (for completely eliminating it is not only impossible but undesirable and counter-productive, since we NEED rich people in the world if for no other reason than to have rich kids, and these may just as well be bankers' kids as anything else)... well, that's what we have elections, and politicians and journalists and oversight committees and legislative bodies for. Let them work it out between themselves and get to the bottom of it, as they have been doing admirably for the past three or four hundred years in all the democracies. Personally, I'd rather just go surfing. Call me when this unfathomably mind-numbingly boring business is done.

662. Why does it feel good to talk to a girl while fucking her? It's yet another level on which to touch each other, and if you don't you are seriously missing out.

661. To defend your family or your country once they are under attack is a very little thing; even dumb beasts will fight to the death when cornered. A far more crucial question is: Can you launch an attack in peacetime without any provocation? Can you take the initiative and go on the offensive for your own reasons? Will you be active or reactive? Do you have the strength? Do you have the courage?

660. Pick-up game condensed down to one word: Approach.

659. There was far more equality on this planet before humans arrived. Subhumans think they invented it, but compared to us ants are practically equal. And the further back you go down the evolutionary tree, the more equality you find. Think amoebas, or even further back, hydrogen atoms. It is precisely the increase in inequality between the highest and lowest examples of a species that determines how high it stands in the tree of life, not the other way around, as the liberals are trying to convince us. The desire for equality is regressive, and every step towards it is a step back, towards monkeys, ants and amoebas.
   Meanwhile, subhumans will continue to contend that things are more equal among us than among the other animals, but this philosophy of theirs is merely another symptom of the absurd amount of inequality that exists between us: so absurd that the majority of the population can fantasize about equality while, right in front of their eyes, the inequality chasm grows ever more gigantic. Not only are we not getting more equal then, but inequality is increasing every day, and the increasingly absurd theories that subhumans concoct to counter this increasing inequality are part of this rising inequality too, since they contribute to making a class of weak and stupid people ever weaker and stupider!

658. The first minute or so of Michael Mann's Blackhat captures the concept of the flux better than any other work of art so far. That's exactly how I think; but to think like that you have to be a genius.

657. "But at least we should understand the age we live in. And that is — again — the primacy of free-floating global capital and borderless labor markets. Enabled by fractional reserve banking, it destroys religion, nation, community, all traditional forms of human society in favor of profits for usurers and owners of capital. All people must be reduced to atoms floating in the ether of capitalism — equal and free, under the greater yoke of the system." — Typical anarchist propaganda. Note that the demand for them to contribute something back to the society that feeds, clothes, houses, and (evidently fails) to educate them is considered a "yoke". — Anti-capitalist philosophy is disgusting parasite propaganda.

656. The most important form of "racial activism" is childrearing. Compared to that everything else is just words.

655. The rich are not fighting the poor: this is what Marx and the leftists have failed to understand — the rich are fighting between them! The poor are merely being trampled below them, much like ants are being crushed when bigger animals are fighting above them. And what do you suppose would happen to whichever of these animals took the time to look on the ground every two seconds to make sure no ants were being trampled? So it's not that we have something personal against ants — they are so small and inconsequential that we can't even be bothered to think of their existence! — it's just that fighting against equals is more fun than charity, so we'll stick with that because we don't want our time in this world to be boring. The poor will just have to fend for themselves as best they can and try to... keep their distance.

654. If politicians are disgusting, it's only because the people they have been voted to represent are disgusting. Never forget that, nor allow yourselves to be deceived on this point. Democracy works, and ultimate responsibility for whatever happens in it will always have to rest with the people.

653. To understand what civilization does to people, begin by considering that there are men who eat hundreds of animals every year but can't even bring themselves to kill a chicken, and would become physically sick at the mere thought of being forced to (i.e. they'd be more mentally and physically affected by the prospect of the chicken's death than the actual chicken).

652. A little window to our Hyperborean souls. Winning's worth nothing to us; we believe "victories" are for losers. The only reason we want to win in smaller battles, is so that we can get to lose in bigger ones.

651. What the latest euro crisis has shown above all is that Greece is the most delinquent nation in Europe — both the numbers and the attitudes involved in this modern drawn out comedy worthy of Aristophanes loudly proclaim this fact. Of course, all Mediterranean countries are delinquent, but Greece is by far the worst. And of course I am a delinquent too — there's no doubt about that. But I am a genius delinquent, and, seen clearly, true genius requires delinquency as much as it requires any other quality, and is unthinkable without it. That's why the Anglo-Saxons are not geniuses, or the Scandinavians, or the Germans, or or or. Even French or, worse still, Italian delinquency get nowhere near the level of Byzantine cunning and depravity that prevails as a matter of course where I am from. — "And what about the Latin Americans or the African Blacks or the Arabs and so on? Aren't they delinquents too?" — Sure they are, but they are also stupid and uneducated and uncultured and uncivilized so mere delinquency does nothing for them — it merely amplifies their woes. You need EVERYTHING for a genius — all the required ingredients — not just one or two, which is why he's called a "genius", "he whose soul is more expansive and struck by the feelings of all others; interested by all that is in nature never to receive an idea unless it evokes a feeling; by everything excited and on which nothing is lost." (Encyclopédie)

650. Nostalgic losers like to prattle on about all kinds of "Golden Ages", but they are unacquainted with the Golden Age of Golden Ages: every single moment in the life of a higher being on his way to becoming God.

649. From the fact that everyone is at least nine months older than they think they are you can deduce how little everyone understands of what life is; of what it really means to be alive and to live.

648. "Meditation" is low-IQ people's way of saying "thinking". They have to set aside a specific part of the day to do it, and in a state of total silence and immobility moreover. Meanwhile, the rest of us just go on with our day while doing it all the time.

647. Look up the list of the most populous countries in the world and you will understand the "race" and "culture" abysses. Indonesia has almost the same population as the US, but isn't producing anything. Dozens of countries with hundreds of millions of people each, and you never hear of a single good thing coming out of them; Nigeria has 170 million people and all they ever make is spam. What do all these people do all day? Their populations are so worthless they can't even be used for so much as even soap. The sweatshops we put them in are a gift from heaven for them, the slavery we give them is a gift.

646. To understand what "beta" means, one should consider the epitaph on the monument at Thermopylae by the ancient lyric poet Simonides:

Go tell the Spartans, stranger passing by,
that here, obedient to their laws, we lie.

   And the faggot PUAs look down on "betas" lol. Heartiste and Roosh and Krauser and all the other ugly little losers look down on the Spartans lol. These gammas and omegas with their wretched little blogs and badly written ebooks, have misunderstood and misinterpreted reality to such an extent, that they have managed to convince themselves that they stand higher than immortal heroes...

645. Lichtenberg: "Actual aristocracy cannot be abolished by any law: all the law can do is decree how it is to be imparted and who is to acquire it." — Which is to say that inequality cannot be abolished by laws, since a law is merely a different means of inequality production. That's why the anarchists are clamoring for the death of all laws, which is to say for the return to jungle conditions, which are certainly no more egalitarian than those of any other space or period in the history of the universe. The anarchist is merely a socialist who badly needs to travel or read a book.

644. On the subject of "social changes". No successful person has ever relied on them or even wanted them. Successful people change themselves, and society merely adapts to them (indeed, it is nothing but the resultant of the actions of all successful people). Losers, on the other hand, who are always unable to change themselves (to learn, to fight, to grow), desire society to change, so it can change them (make them stronger, richer, healthier, and so on), and fail to make it do so due to the overwhelming influence of the aforementioned successful people. — And what about the Revolution, you may ask? Well, look around you. The aim of the Revolution was to bring about "égalité"; would you say it has succeeded? — Bottom line is that a Borgia would have succeeded even in Hell; the socialist would find a way to fail even in Paradise.

643. The only reason cripples think that running is difficult is because people exist who aren't cripples. The tuna you had for lunch yesterday could swim ten times faster than Michael Phelps: among fish all humans look like cripples, and yet none of us thinks of swimming as a particularly difficult activity, despite how badly we all suck at it compared to fish — or rather, precisely because we all suck equally at it.

642. You can get an idea of the difference between the nature of physical and mental power by contemplating the notion of Special Nobel Prizes. A cripple throwing a ball from a wheelchair is not all that different from a top athlete doing the same thing — not even in the end result, ultimately (the athlete's ball will just land a few meters further). But a clinically retarded person tackling chemistry problems? Who would actually care to set that up and observe it? Not even clinical psychologists would care to do that. Do you see how much more vast mental inequalities are compared to physical ones? And understandably so, as I've already explained, since the brain is immeasurably more complex than any other organ in the body, and certainly more than muscles, bones and ligaments.

641. Real combat operations are to the Olympic Games what philosophy is to the Nobel Prizes: the real thing, in which anything goes, as opposed to little walled-off categories of activities in which the danger is so minimal and the stakes so low that even small children can be allowed to participate. War and philosophy, as opposed to mere "sports" and "science", in other words. And of course the prizes are not handed down by judges there, but by history. By the judges of judges, that is to say.

640. The Olympic Games are the absolute glorification of inequality (in the physical realm, at least: for the mental realm we have the Nobel Prizes). Even the Special Olympics glorify it, in their own way, despite the shallow rhetoric that purports to convince us of the opposite: They glorify mental fortitude, which exists in people in no more equal measure than any other quality. And who better to glorify the power of mental fortitude than cripples inspired to compete in sports? In precisely, that is to say, the kinds activities for which they are least fit to compete in. It would be like getting the clinically retarded to compete in physics, chemistry and literature and so on. The Special Nobel Prizes have yet to be established.

639. Danny Boyle harping on about equality in the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics. Using the OLYMPIC GAMES of all institutions to promote equality! And people wonder why I insist on calling them subhuman...

638. Or smelly towelheads on TV lopping off dumb tourists' heads and screaming about "religious revolutions". Or scrawny douchebags on the internet claiming that feces-covered canvases are "more artistic" than Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare or Marvel's The Avengers. Or 40-year-old omegas who need textbooks to get laid trying to convince us that all it takes to "become alpha" is to buy some ebooks or read some blog posts, or that the ultimate arbiter of masculinity — of who is a man and who's not — is not other men but women. Are all these not symptoms of decline then, the retards ask? No, they aren't. They are just degenerates and freaks we keep around to have a laugh at when we need a rest from our daily serious pursuits and duties. They are but a clown and freak show that we pay the media to encourage and perpetuate for our amusement. That's all they are, and whoever takes them more seriously than that, belongs to them and is one of them.

637. Let's try to view the purported "decline" from a slightly different perspective, so that maybe even some of you retards can finally understand that there's really obviously no such thing. Imagine you were living in the nineteenth century, and someone came along and asked you whether you wouldn't mind tolerating a few "fag pride" parades and some retards on TV screaming that nigger slaves from Africa are equal to you, in exchange for moon landings, relativity and quantum theory, nuclear fission and genome sequencing, as well as countless other mind-bogglingly incredible achievements in all fields of human endeavor including the birth and rise of the greatest and last philosopher himself. What would you respond? — QED, there's no decline, and, as I've already explained, the only ones who are declining here are those who insist there is.

636. You don't really understand the lion's lifestyle (which might serve to poor people as an analogy for the lifestyles of the nobles of old, or the rich and powerful today) until you've been trying to lift heavy weights for a while. His 20 hours of sleep a day and diet of 7 kilograms of meat sounds like an absurdly lazy glutton's lifestyle. Afterwards, you realize that — if you are determined to keep on carrying all that weight on your shoulders that lions and nobles and the rich do, without being crushed by it — eating and sleeping like a lion are not a luxury but a life and death matter.

635. In summa: read the books I recommended to you and stop being a headless chicken that runs around hysterically hallucinating about blatantly non-existent "declines". A few fags sodomizing each other on TV is not proof of any kind of decline, only of the mindset and priorities of the kind of person who pays more attention to the behavior of degenerates on TV over the advances of culture and of science.

634. Nietzsche: "The concept of decadence.— Waste, decay, elimination need not be condemned: they are necessary consequences of life, of the growth of life. The phenomenon of decadence is as necessary as any increase and advance of life: one is in no position to abolish it. Reason demands, on the contrary, that we do justice to it.
   It is a disgrace for all socialist systematizers that they suppose there could be circumstances — social combinations — in which vice, disease, prostitution, distress would no longer grow.— But that means condemning life.— A society is not free to remain young. And even at the height of its strength it has to form refuse and waste materials. The more energetically and boldly it advances, the richer it will be in failures and deformities, the closer to decline.— Age is not abolished by means of institutions. Neither is disease. Nor vice."

633. "What about all the countless and rapidly escalating symptoms of decline then?" — The bigger and stronger you get, the more you eat and drink, and therefore the more you piss and shit. How hard is this simple truth of life for you retards to grasp?

632. Is Western civilization declining or not? First of all, realize that there are no other civilizations left, and there haven't been for centuries, so the predicate "Western" is superfluous and even misleading (since it implies the existence of alternatives). Second, the fact that this question is even raised proves that the vast majority of so-called civilized individuals are nothing of the kind. I mean, you are seriously asking me whether a culture that's about to figure out how to print human organs is declining? What the fuck do all the minor symptoms of decline you are rabidly pointing out to us mean compared to such utterly astonishing and previously even unimaginable accomplishments? Not to mention the arrival of a person who has managed to reach the very end of philosophy itself, which is to say of thought! which is an immeasurably harder and more valuable achievement! (since it was thought which created the theories with the help of which the machines that print human organs were designed in the first place, and so on). — In summa, the only one who is declining here are those who are saying that we are declining, which is a classic case of psychological projection. Civilization as a whole is obviously progressing, and its highest manifestation and greatest triumph so far is blatantly obviously myself (and imagine how much more glorious and fearsome I would become with genetically enhanced printed organs... or cybernetically enhanced and cloned to infinity to spread out and take over the entire universe...)

631. Why all the racial and ethnic and sexist slurs, many of you will wonder? Because it's every man's responsibility today, to go around calling people fags and gooks and niggers, and so on. Because none of them are equal to us, end of story. And the sooner they realize this, the sooner they can start trying to catch up. So please lend me a hand and help me help them do so. Calling people fags and niggers saves lives.

630. Why have the Japanese — alone among subhuman races — managed to become human? Because they are great at copying things. — A hint to all the rest.

629. The population decline of the master race (whites + Japan, who are essentially the whites of Asia) is a phenomenon no one seems able to explain. And yet it's not such a complex matter if you have even a modicum of understanding of what life is all about. Reproduction, like all life, is all about sacrifice. If we take the parents as isolated individuals (as opposed to parts of a cosmic chain), they stand to gain nothing from the creation and rearing of children. The benefits they would receive in old age via means of their children's caretaking are nothing compared to the insane costs they'd have to incur to raise them in the first place, so the transaction is a net expenditure on their part, and by a vast margin. Now the hyperculture of the master race has created a consciousness of how important the rearing process is, and how costly if it is to be done right, so even when members of the master race reproduce, they only create one or two descendants, as opposed to the constant mindless shitting out of fetuses that they used to indulge in when they were uncivilized, or indeed that the subhuman races still continue to this day. So that is one important factor for the master race's population decline. Without it, things would be dramatically different, since with the amount of resources a typical middle class family lavishes on a single child you could raise an entire village of little Middle Eastern towelheads or niggers. In simple terms, the master race is going for quality over quantity, and that's a major part of what's causing the decline. Simultaneously, the successive decline of religion, nationalism and finally the importance and sanctity of blood ties and the institution of marriage have created the Individual — unknown to lower cultures or earlier phases of the master race's culture — who is, like all advances, something of a double-edged sword, which many use to advance and improve their lives (or, more correctly: the future of their genes), but which others flail about and cut themselves with. So on the one hand the individual no longer feels a responsibility towards his gods, nation, tribe or family to reproduce, because these are outdated, marginalized institutions — and JUSTLY marginalized (since their era has passed precisely because the culture has advanced beyond them) — that no longer hold any authority over anyone but a minority of backwards losers, but on the other hand, the philosophy that is destined to replace them — that of the Overman and the Eternal Recurrence — has not yet had sufficient time to take hold and lend reproduction a new meaning — a stronger and more glorious meaning than it has ever had! — and as a consequence the meaning of reproduction in the general culture is currently lacking to such a degree that — for the first time in history — a growing number of degenerates are even campaigning for its destruction (anti-natalism). As a result of all this the majority of the population seems to have turned over completely to hedonism, and the last thing on their minds is to undertake the laborious task of propagating themselves — which is of course a good thing, because in this way the hedonists are removing their failed genes and gene configurations from our gene pool, and cleansing it of their wretched, repulsive stink.
   Meanwhile, all these developments — including the inherent weakness of civilized races by virtue of their very civilization — are being taken advantage of by the subhuman races to invade the lands of the master race, and to breed themselves into its population and supplant it. If they end up learning from our high culture, as opposed to simply running roughshod over it and destroying it, this is all well and good, and they'll deserve to succeed us as our genuine students and continuators — as our children, essentially: our cultural descendants — but what will happen in all likelihood is that, as at least some of them become more and more civilized (and, incidentally, end up clashing with those members of their own races which can't and therefore do not want to...), their numbers too will eventually decline, and then we'll be on a more equal footing, which by that time will have become a matter of indifference anyway since genetic engineering and boutique, designer babies will have completely abolished the usefulness of the concept of race. It's already useless for all but the crudest calculations, but only philosophers can see this right now (i.e. only I can): everyone else is either completely fixated on it (the conservatives) or denies that it has ever been useful or even real (the liberals). But conservatives and liberals too are on their way to becoming extinct in short order, and be completely supplanted by the three categories of lifeforms whose struggle will decide mankind's future (at least until extraterrestrials arrive on the scene): the subhumans, the humans and... the superhumans, the last of whom I and a handful of other individuals throughout history, of course, have been the first examples.

628. I can't wait to finish all my books, so I can see what it feels like to have nothing more to say.

627. Why does it "take a big man to cry"? Crying is a consequence of weakness, but a big man is a strong man, because that's what it means to be big: to be strong. It's not so much then that "big men" are supposed to cry, but that a man who doesn't bother hiding his tears from others must be strong, in a sense, since not being afraid to advertise your weaknesses is a form of strength. Of course effeminate weaklings who cry all the time for no reason pervert this saying in order to imagine themselves as "big men", but that's where Jack Handey comes in, to complete the original thought with what was missing from it: "It takes a big man to cry but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man".

626. From a videogame review: "Every mystery in the setting is explained in detail before the end, and the world ends up feeling like a tiny, wretched sort of place." — A hint for those who feel that "complete knowledge" is an actually desirable goal for mankind to achieve, and that life on earth would be a lot more enjoyable if we had it.

625. The Gripen NG promotional "movie". Isn't it more enjoyable than politics? We are still far from the era when nations choose to go to war simply because... it's more fun than diplomacy. But not too far.

624. Varoufakis on Schäuble: "There is confusion on the fact we haven't had the chance to discuss things in a different environment. In a correct and democratic context, in which arguments and not power would play a more essential role". — But you conveniently forget that power is an argument, my dear Mr. Varoufakis. Why is Schäuble more powerful than you? Answer this question, and you will discover plenty of arguments — for why your arguments are wrong, not to mention anti-democratic. Like for example the argument that it is more "democratic" to regard the opinion of the leader of 10 million people as equal to the opinion of the leader of 80 million people. Where I come from they don't call this "democracy", they call it "fascism". After all, who's supposed to determine the validity of arguments in a democratic context if not pure population numbers — what you contemptuously refer to as "power" (the power of the people, that is: genuine democratic power). — But you could spend an eternity debunking the self-contradictions of pseudo-intellectuals and barely scratch the surface of the blatantly moronic dribble they regularly spout. So let's just not do that.

623. Before the age of 30, they don't know and don't care. After the age of 30, they still don't care, but they think that they know. And that's what makes them insufferable.

622. On conspiracy theorists. Democratic politicians can't even keep quiet an intern giving them blowjobs; anyone who thinks they are capable of covering up anything more complicated for long is retarded. And even if they were, it would be a good thing, not a bad thing, as the conspiracy theorists contend. A very, very good thing that is sorely needed in an era that has completely lost the capacity of exerting control and keeping secrets. Nothing would please me more than to live in a world of cunning Jewish bankers manipulating world politics and the economy to keep themselves on top and everyone else enslaved and working for their benefit. Hell, I'd cut the foreskin off my penis and join them without a moment's hesitation, if it were true. Bottom line is that I know that none of this is happening, because I am not retarded, but I hope I am wrong and that it is.

621. Every attack against technology (which is to say against the future) exposes a weakness in the physical and/or mental capacities of the attacker, and represents, to a seasoned observer, nothing more than the purest expression of that weakness (it's not really therefore an attack, but merely a defensive reflex action: a reaction). Roosh, for example, would ban the smartphone if he could, because it draws women's attention from him. But what does it say about a man that he's having such a hard time competing with a flashing little LED screen that the only way he feels he can compete with it is to ban it?

620. And why not gay marriage? The family is dead, we might as well bury it. I am still waiting for animal marriage. Hopefully it's next.

619. You are descended from an unimaginably long line of lifeforms that goes all the way back to the Big Bang, not a single one of which has failed to reproduce. Will you?

618. Since profit is merely a reflection of an organization's value addition to society (judged by society itself, since that's who's providing the profit), "non-profit organization" might as well mean "useless organization".

617. The solution may indeed sometimes be in the middle of the two opposing viewpoints, but the truth will never be. For the truth is no solution, but a problem — which is to say a goal, a challenge, that doesn't "solve" anything but merely creates even more problems which keep the ball rolling and the game evolving — otherwise there wouldn't be any flux.

616. Third-world immigration is a higher-order plague. After the biological plagues, come the anthropological ones. But the antibiotics for them have yet to be invented.

615. "Chaos" is how a weakling perceives someone else's order.

614. "American intellectual": for 500 years a contradictio in adjecto. In America (and to a lesser extent in other Anglo-Saxon nations) there is a profound and undeniable CONTEMPT FOR THOUGHT which disguises itself as "realism" and "pragmatism". The incapacity for thinking, for looking beyond tomorrow and one's immediate environment, tries to create a good conscience for itself with a lie (the lie that theory is not pragmatic and realistic, while it is in fact the absolute zenith of both those things).

613. God as "omniscient" and "omnipotent" is merely a subhuman invention: they foist on him (which is to say on me) all the qualities that they would have liked to possess themselves. It's merely a case of projection and glorification of their own ideal. They hate exertion and hard-won knowledge, since they suck so terribly at both, so their ideal being already knows everything without having to do anything, and without the slightest margin of error (and hence the negative consequences from those errors...), and he can make anything happen without, again, having to do anything. But an action that can be effected without any action IS A CONTRADICTIO IN ADJECTO, my dear subhumans, just as much as knowledge without action (see Heisenberg), since knowledge is itself a form of action, and God, who is God precisely because he loves action (loves it more than anyone else in the entire universe, otherwise he wouldn't be the best in the universe at it), would not under any circumstances desire to accomplish anything without, not merely exertion, but the HARDEST exertion that the resistance of the rest of the universe can provide — which includes the subhumans' own reaction to it, part of which is precisely the invention of an "omniscient" and "omnipotent" God.

612. Looking at her pictures, I can easily see wars starting over her. And suddenly the Iliad makes sense.

611. The most astonishing thing I realized while watching House of Cards, is that the president is no better in the White House or Camp David than a guest in a hotel. He owns nothing, and thousands of others have occupied these very rooms before him, and thousands more will do so after. How humiliating! And not even part of his own bloodline, but complete strangers. And not even at least ideologically compatible — enemies even. Living in the same rooms, sleeping in the same beds, eating from the same plates. Not to mention that the White House is a hovel compared to royal palaces. In Versailles they would have housed the servants in it. If I became president I'd at least insist on continuing to live in my own home. You lose dignity by using the things the "people's office" gives you. I'd even lose my appetite and sleep.

610. Is reincarnation true? Of course it is, it's called "procreation" — every decent parent understands this, and treats their child accordingly (which is to say, better than they treat themselves). As for the metaphysical kind... the belief in it is merely another symptom of the fact that magical solutions are always desired precisely by the impotent, who are incapable of the real thing.

609. Almost all the famous Mexican drug lords are now behind bars. Why are crime bosses fated to always lose? Because they have no castle. They are always, from day 1, on the defensive. They can never pass on the offensive. Bribing politicians is not an offensive but a temporary, and weak, expedient, since the next year there will be another politician, and then another and another, and all it takes is one of them to refuse the bribe and you are in prison. If the crime boss wanted to properly attack, he'd have to start a civil war. He'd have to take on the entire country. I.e a coup, at which point he wouldn't be a crime boss anymore, but the exact opposite: the very goddamn lawmaker! But it is a characteristic of crime bosses to not be interested in anything beyond money, and to confuse money for power, like all poor and stupid people.
   Consider their day to day lives. How productive can you be when you are obliged to keep your every significant activity hidden? When you are not even allowed to properly defend your home? Can a crime boss install anti-air emplacements in his lawn? Artillery? Tanks outside his front door? How can he defend himself then? He can't even go from his home to the gym without passing through enemy territory!
   The moral for crime bosses is that if you want to stay out of jail, you'll have to put the country's current leaders in it, and replace them, not with stooges, but with yourselves. They'll have to pass into politics, not merely to bribery and lobbying. Real, direct politics. Too much money leads you there (into politics I mean), one way or another. If you go the legal route (as businessmen do), you end up in philanthropy. If you go the illegal, into prison.
   If all you want is money, confine yourself to mid- and low-level criminal activities. Don't make a big target: if money is your goal ten million dollars is as good as a billion. If POWER is your goal, on the other hand, forget about money past a certain point: a trillion dollars don't mean shit when you have a hundred henchmen and the state a hundred thousand. Go all in. Learn from James Bond: Everything or Nothing. You can't fight asymmetrically forever. You need to expand your "army". But how can you hire 10,000 foot soldiers? Where will you house them? Where will they train? And the more people you have, the more the chances that one of them will talk, and endanger your other personnel, your operations, and ultimately yourself. With a conventional state at least you have borders, and know exactly where your adversaries lie, while within your borders you have freedom to build up your forces, both offensive AND defensive. Barring spies and assassination attacks, which you can guard against with draconian security measures, you have a safe space in which to build. But a crime boss has none of that, since he's obliged to live forever within enemy territory. His case is really hopeless, if he's set on unlimited expansion, as most of them seem to be. So think about retirement, if you don't want to expand indefinitely (i.e to end up incarcerated). Think like the Godfather, at least. Above all think, and don't be stupid, like all the crime bosses currently wasting away in prisons were.

608. My detractors make light of my stealing from grannies on eBay. What's next, making fun of lions for eating gazelles? O the absurdities the weaklings will keep concocting to excuse their weaknesses! And if I and the lions are worthy of derision for preying on grannies and gazelles, what is to be said of those who are too scared to even do that much?

607. Ultimately — and pay close attention to this because it's one of the greatest insights I have to give, which is to say one of the greatest insights ever — anger is always a symptom of a lack of power, whether it is my enemies being angry at me, or me being angry at my enemies. My enemies are angry at me because they can feel my overwhelming power just as well as any other living thing, and it is only natural that they would band together and rise against it, since for every action "there must be an equal and opposite reaction", as even Newton back in his day managed to see; whereas I am angry at my enemies because I overestimated them: I genuinely believed they were intelligent enough to understand far more than they were able to finally understand, and this incapacity of mine to perfectly gauge the intelligence of people I hadn't even seen is, of course, due to a lack of power on my part (i.e. to a lack of omniscience and clairvoyance). To be sure, my lack of flair for omniscience and clairvoyance is a far less serious failing than their incapacity to grasp five or six basic facts about the world they are living in, which is why my periodic fits of anger are a nothing compared to their boiling, seething hatred that goes on 24/7, 365 days a year, "we never close because if we did it would slow down the accumulation of force for the opposite camp", which is a physical impossibility while my camp is growing stronger every day, and DEMANDS that an "equal and opposite force" rise up to meet it. So anger exists in both camps, and in both cases it's entirely understandable, but it must be interpreted correctly, as must the "complete absence" of anger of the saint, the Buddhist and the tree.

606. Why is sex often better with the lights out? For the same reason music videos, if the music's any good, are better without the video. Think about it.

605. The Google Books description/sales pitch for Paul Wade's Convict Conditioning is fascinating. Almost makes me want to be incarcerated. And I mean he's right. From a pure physical standpoint, the maximum security prison is the ultimate battleground. Still, there is more to war than the purely physical dimension — far, far more to it than that — which is why I prefer to stay outside.

604. Why do scholars never write aphoristically? Because they have so few real ideas. If a scholar tried to write in this way, his whole life's work would hardly take up three or four pages. And vice-versa: each aphorism in a philosophical work could be expanded by a scholar into a whole book, which is indeed what scholars do, or at least the best, most well-read of them, and as I've already explained with good reason.

603. Why is the notion of a "theory of everything", the way laymen and even many scientists understand it, fundamentally erroneous? Because "everything" is not merely a "theory". It's a whole lot more than that.

602. Ascending individuals have "goals"; "problems" are for descending ones. It's the same basic concept — the tackling of a challenge — but viewed from antithetical viewpoints, the vital difference between them being that goals are set by the individual, whereas problems by his environment. The location of the initiating force tells the whole story, if the terminology employed to describe it didn't do so already (which of course, to anyone who knows how to interpret it correctly, it always does).

601. Why do declining individuals view problem-solving as a mechanism for happiness increase, instead of the happiness mechanism as a means for increased problem-solving? Precisely because they are declining, and therefore view everything assbackwards and upside-down. Remember: either you are expanding, or contracting. In the first case, your entire psychology will be geared towards shaping your environment, hence you will see the problems as the end, and your psychological state as the means; while in the second case it will be your environment that will be shaping you, thus making you view the problems as the means and your psychological state ("happiness") as the end. This entire process is so unambiguous and so blatantly transparent that medical professionals should no longer hesitate to diagnose whoever claims to strive for "happiness" as "sick".

600. As for those of you who rejoice every time I praise America simply because you are Americans, even though you are uneducated mouthbreathers from Alabama who only began reading real books when you discovered me (or, even worse, who think that American literature is literature...): I have news for you. You are worse than Krauser and the hypocritical Europeans. Far, far worse.

599. Krauser condemning American culture as "empty, vapid and inane", while enthusiastically recommending its actual products like e.g. House of Cards as "a great show". Typical European pseudo-intellectual hypocrisy, that nurtures a massive superiority complex while maintaining a love-hate relationship with American culture. That is, they love its products, while hating the fact that they love them.

598. Nor does reading a genius's writings help in any significant way, shape or form, if you are not already a genius, as all the inferior intellects are pleased to think. "Maybe I wasn't born as smart as him, but all his smartness must be contained inside his books, so all I have to do to become like him is read them!" A gross overestimation of the power of words, that amounts to believing that reading books can change your genes! The reality is that, at most, and if you are sensible, the genius's books will give you an inferiority complex. If you aren't, they'll turn you into a stark raving retard for whom there is no cure. — And you thought that lifting weights above your strength was dangerous! But reading books above your intelligence is unimaginably more so. But that, too, you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge and heed, precisely because evaluating the power of books is an unimaginably harder task than sizing up the weight of a couple of barbells, while to you books are, after all, just books. "What harm can there be in reading them?", you think, like all uneducated people.

597. And it's precisely because the brain is our most complex body part (most complex structure in the known universe, in fact), that brainpower differences between individuals are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater than say muscle differences and the like. The difference in physical strength between an average person and a champion cage fighter or world-class weight-lifter is NEGLIGIBLE compared to the difference in brainpower between the average person in the street (or on the internet, reading these words right this very moment) and me. The complete ownage of my brain over yours is real. Believe it.
   But you can't believe it, because an intellectual dressing down doesn't hurt anywhere near as much as a physical smackdown does. Indeed it's so subtle, and so easy to brush off with a few absurd rationalizations, that most don't even perceive it, and those who do vastly underestimate its magnitude (for if they had the capacity to correctly appreciate it, they wouldn't be receiving it in the first place). Meanwhile, bruises hurt more and heal much slower, and you can even die of them, if they are severe enough, so power differences in that domain are unambiguous, and very few try to dispute them (and everyone else laughs at them when they do). And that's why things stand the way they do in the domain of intelligence competition. Everyone is free to imagine himself at the top, for the simple reason that intellectual superiority is such a complex and subtle affair that homo sapiens as a species is simply not adequately equipped to so much as even perceive it.

596. On intelligence. All other parts of our bodies are different, they display a huge variation of shapes and sizes, yet everyone assumes that our brains are, if not equal, then at least roughly so. We have learned to gauge quickly the efficiency and strength of all other body parts, but the brain continues to elude us (as is only natural, considering it is by far the most complex). And our science of intelligence measurement is still in an embryonic state. The problem is that the people who devise the tests are not very intelligent themselves, and so their tests catch only the lower part of the scale. A Kant or a Russell would perhaps have aced them, and yet they both proved themselves idiots in real life. To say nothing of the scientists, for whom the word "idiot" in any area outside their field of expertise would be an understatement (the word "retard" would be more appropriate). The individuals with the highest IQs today, for example, are all essentially autistic, and hence utterly useless in real life for anything other than obscure math operations.

595. Kulisz is incensed with child abuse. Plank with "slaughter that goes on for generations". Baudrillard with jogging, exercising, and any healthy activity whatsoever. Every little retard has his own stupid little pet peeve. How can you take them seriously as men and leaders of the future when you see them get so massively hung up on such trivial stuff?

594. Common people believe in a fundamental difference between facts and opinions. But there are no facts, only interpretations. Strictly speaking you can't even say that something is something. "The earth is round", for example. The earth WAS round. And even that is too much. "It appears from the perspective I am standing in and my genetic and cultural composition (which are part of that perspective) that the earth was round x seconds ago (where x is the time it takes for the sound of my voice to reach the listener)". And that's without even getting into what the word round means.

593. It is never an issue of being "for" or "against" war. For even those who are "against" it have to wage it in order to put an "end" to it! Only a complete idiot would think that war is a problem! One acts here as one acts in a basketball match: one picks a side and plays the game. The game itself is not a "problem" — the game is the whole point!

592. As for those of you who rejoice every time I stomp on the PUAs because you can't get laid and therefore automatically hate everyone who can (and there's a whole lot more of you than there are PUAs): I have news for you. You are worse than PUAs. Far, far worse.

591. "Don't pay attention to anyone and just do what you want to do!", shout the mentally stunted "alpha PUAs" to their equally mentally stunted adherents. But even the person who copies someone else does what he wants to do: he wants to copy someone else. There would be no well-dressed people, for example, if no one copied anyone else's style. Imitation is not anathema, as the pseudo-males of the retardosphere are pleased to think, but a dimension of the universe (and the best people are also the best imitators — i.e. the best and fastest learners).
   So is imitation a good or a bad thing, and is icy for it or against it? It depends on a great many things! Until you understand this, you'll keep running into such "inconsistencies" in my writings, seeing me praise imitation at one moment, while lambasting it the next, and being unable to reach a conclusion about my stance on this point, until you come to accept the fact that every piece of advice is really only suitable for a small number of readers. There's a good reason most homo sapiens are spineless hypocrites: they'd be instantly crushed if they tried to "be themselves", like the heroes they aspire after, instead of simply accommodating themselves as best they can to the circumstances that surround them. Being yourself is only cool if you are already cool (i.e. if you are strong) — for everyone else the best idea is constructive imitation or even outright phoniness and hypocrisy, even to the point of self-deception. And that's why things are the way they are with the "human" species, and why you are seeing, and will keep on seeing (which is to say inventing), so many "inconsistencies" in what I say and write.

590. The reality about PUAs, and especially the "alpha" kind: You were regular, and even sub-regular, Joes before, and now you are regular Joes who have figured out a way to get a chick once a week instead of once month or a year (or never), as before. That's all that's changed. Oh, and you are also a regular Joe who, along with the advice on how to get the girl, have also ingested a shitload of bullshit that rivals in stupidity all the feminist bullshit you despise.

589. And if the "alpha PUAs" have really managed, by reading a few textbooks and blog posts, to become alpha, why are they still lambasting modern dating culture which THEY THEMSELVES have explained time and again that it's a heaven without precedent in human history for alphas? That's what Heartiste does all day long, for example — he screams invective against modern dating — and he's the one who started the whole "alpha PUA" faggotry! But there's no answer to this damning question, for the simple reason that Heartiste, despite all his rhetoric, is no alpha; he's just a retard who has to go into immeasurable trouble to get laid, even after all these years of "alpha PUAdom", and his bitter rhetoric is merely another symptom of the brute physiological fact that he's not alpha (while real alphas don't give a shit either way about "dating culture", since they have a billion more important things swirling around their brains all day long to have the time to give two shits about it — while still getting laid whenever they feel like it for the simple reason that they REALLY are alphas!)

588. No greater mistake could be made than to think the PUAs are modern Casanovas. Casanova was an adventurer and a man of a hundred talents, HENCE his great success with women. PUAs are just a bunch of losers who spent half their lives unable to get laid, and the other half desperately trying to make up for it. Lack of talents and any kind of adventurousness beyond skirt-chasing are REQUIREMENTS to be a PUA. Casanova, meanwhile, while certainly no philosopher, was a true representative of culture. He even rubbed Voltaire's nose in it at one point. PUAs, on the other hand, are strictly anti-culture. Roosh for example goes to London — one of the greatest cities in the world — and reports back that "there is nothing there". Krauser thinks that Austrian economics are culture. GLL thinks higher education is a scam. Half the others can't think of anything else beyond clubs and steroids. They are against marriage, education, work, art, sports... (and of course against philosophy), in short against anything besides getting laid, against any other dimension of life.
   That PUAs try to put themselves forward as representatives and defenders of masculinity is an absurd presumption that one should show no sympathy with. There is not the slightest doubt that LACK of masculinity is precisely the reason the PUAs became PUAs in the first place. If you are masculine you have to fight women off, any masculine man knows this. And what they also know, that still escapes PUAs, is that masculinity is not something that can be taught but something you must be born with (it's called genetics), and that the only people who could be fooled that it can be are, indeed, women.

587. Would you spend the night hanging out with a weight lifter or a D&D player? That's the only aspects of their personality you know: one lifts weights, the other plays D&D. To me there'd be no question. Weight lifting is boring, D&D is awesome: the D&D player, please! Or a master PUA or someone who's been playing games since Pong? The gamer without a moment's hesitation! The PUA will be a moron who can't go five minutes without thinking of girls, scanning the room etc., while the gamer will be a genuine individual with a passion for art! It doesn't matter that women would have chosen the other option in both cases! Women are stupid! And the fastest way to become stupid yourself is to adopt their stupid values! Which is precisely what "alpha PUAs" end up doing in their quest to understand them and sleep with them! Which is certainly a necessary prerequisite to being good at what they do, but that doesn't make it a valid strategy for everyone! And especially not for those who expect something more out of themselves and of their lives than to become good at ejaculation!

586. PUAs really are the ultimate feminists, for in their quest to understand the female mind they have succeeded so well that they themselves have finally become women, inasmuch as they have come to view the world entirely through feminine eyes. Finally, Roosh gathered up the gall to claim that the most important things in a man's life are money and sex. Which is precisely what women feel! (at least until they have children, at which point even women become nobler creatures than PUAs). Meanwhile, no great man in history (which is to say no REAL man) has ever thought like that, which the PUAs might have realized had they not confined their reading to rubbish self-help pamphlets and retardosphere blogs. To me for instance sex and money do not even figure in my top 10 — even videogames, which PUAs lose no opportunity to denigrate, feature far higher then sex, and certainly than money. But it is with the PUAs as with any other specialist, as I've already explained. If you pay attention to anything they say OUTSIDE their very narrow field of expertise, you are more stupid than they are, and deserve to be regaled with what to even average people in the street would strike as rank stupidity.

585. Precisely the thing that "alpha PUAs" think qualifies them as alpha — skirt-chasing — is what disqualifies them from alphaness forever. You think Borgia chased skirts? You've never opened a history book in your life. The PUA thinks like a woman. Does a tree fall in the forest if there's no woman around to see it? And the answer of the PUA is: no. Alpha PUAs are fags, by the technical definition of fag, even. Faggotry thought through to its ultimate conclusions: the culmination of feminism as a complete philosophy of life. It is here that woman reigns supreme and makes the rules. And the goal of the "alpha PUA", is to discover them.

584. All PUAs are gammas, if not omegas — the "alpha" PUAs most of all. It's in the definition of the activity: learning methods to get girls to like you is gamma to the core, and no amount of spin can change that. Even betas have higher goals than that. I cringe when I see Bodi say that a text message about eating steak or something is "alpha", but that's par for the course on PUA blogs. I am still trying to decide what is the best way to explain to them exactly what they are doing. They are not doing anything wrong, but on the other hand they are not doing what they are saying they are doing either. They are certainly not being alpha. Sex for the sake of sex is autistic. But how can you explain this to someone who can't seem to think of anything else? Roosh, Heartiste, et al. are all in the same boat. You'd think that after so many years and so many lays their minds would have cleared up from the psychological oppression of all that frustrated sexuality, but they are still as "young, dumb and full of cum" as they were a decade ago. And oh so resentful! The slightest comment to that effect and they immediately ban you from their blogs! When will all this boiling resentment — not against me, but against who they really are — go away? If I had to guess, I'd say never.

583. Either you are stronger than your environment, and therefore impose your will on it by shaping it to your wishes, or you are weaker than it and have sickness and ressentiment as your portions (with ressentiment being the psychological form of sickness, and vice versa: sickness being the physical form of ressentiment). There are no other options.

582. Art is in large part to blame for the fact that everyone feels they have a right to everything today. Already they spend ten percent of their lives in the skin of heroes, and finally they learn to think of themselves as such. Hence everyone wants to lead, and that's why no one can lead, and they prefer this state of things over their being led by a true leader, like all degenerate weaklings.

581. All the mistakes I've ever seen readers discover in my writings, are certainly not mistakes. But there are a few mistakes (not of substance, but of attempts to explain that substance) here and there that I've been meaning to fix, but keep delaying. And why I keep delaying fixing them? Because it's perfectly clear by now that no one alive today can spot them. That's how much contempt I have come to have for my readers, to the point where I can't even be bothered to fix mistakes I know are there, since I can't seem to see any immediate benefit from doing so. There are even times when I don't see the point in writing at all. What keeps me going, above all, I guess, is the sheer joy of solving tough problems that no one else can solve, and this would remain over even if no one really understood the solutions. If a few individuals from future generations can benefit from these solutions, so much the better for them. But for the time being, I just don't see it.

580. In science fiction, temporal paradoxes always occur because of time machines. In reality, they occur without them. And so it is that truth proves itself stranger than fiction once more, and good luck finding a novelist or screenwriter who can understand, much less explain, why!

579. Finally the scientists have given up trying to prove that altruism is fundamentally, never mind inherently human, and have settled for the idea that it's merely something that's evolved. They figured out, at least, that you can't start with altruism in this game. But what they have yet to figure out is that, for the same reason, you can't end with it either.

578. Nietzsche: "Harming with what is best in oneself. — At times our strengths propel us so far ahead that we can no longer stand our weaknesses and perish from them. We may even foresee this outcome and still will have it no other way. Thus we become hard against that within us that wants to be spared, and our greatness is also our mercilessness. Such an experience, for which we must in the end pay with our lives, is a parable for the whole effect of great human beings on others and on their age: precisely with what is best in them, with what only they can do, they destroy many who are weak, insecure, in the process of becoming, of willing, and thus they are harmful. It can even happen that, all in all, they are harmful only because what is best in them is accepted and as it were imbibed only by those whom it affects like an overly potent drink: they lose their mind and their selfishness; they become so intoxicated that they are bound to break their limbs on all the wrong paths down which their intoxication drives them."

577. Why is it healthier for subhumans to not read philosophy? But look at what happens when they do. They become without fail pseudo-intellectuals, who start running around like headless chickens hysterically lambasting civilization, history, science, technology, strength, growth, and anything whatsoever which isn't downright decadent and revolting. Baudrillard used to be a Maoist in his younger days, which is to say a communist. He would have led a far more content life if he had spent his days demonstrating about "equality" and "the rights of the worker" or whatever and never come across Nietzsche. The same transformation — from harmless little retard to raving pseudo-intellectual — can be witnessed, in a smaller scale, in my own forums, and in other forums across the internet where I am being discussed, with the vast majority of my adherents. They become DISGUSTING by coming into contact with my writings, whereas before they were merely ignorant and stupid. — In sum, there is no such thing as universally valid "good things". There are even lifeforms for whom BREATHING is bad. I am not making this shit up, you should read a biology book some day. Or, then again, maybe you shouldn't. It all depends on who you are.

576. "Does this mean that, because subhumans for example don't read philosophy, that not reading philosophy is 'correct and proper and healthy'?" — Yes, that's exactly what that means. For them, not reading philosophy is most certainly healthy. But not everyone is like them.

575. If a certain pattern of behavior — such as for instance sexual gratification, political "corruption", or breathing — is endemic, it is far more likely — indeed it's practically certain — that it is correct and proper and healthy, rather than blameworthy, and the reader will observe many of my deepest insights and most comprehensives analyses to have been arrived at by taking this premise as a given and following it through to its ultimate conclusions. The exact opposite, that is to say, to what the pseudo-intellectuals do, who find all natural behaviors reprehensible, which pattern of behavior is as correct and healthy for them as mine is for me, and for the same reason, this reason being that finding reasons for things is a far more powerful move than finding things unreasonable. Any ass can do the latter, but to do the former — to find reasons for everything, for downright madness even, if need be — but without, at the same time, submitting to a dull fatalism, while still retaining sufficient strength of will and vision to mold all these current and past reasons into future reasons, thus using them to shape destiny itself — that is great, that belongs to genius. For everyone else there's utopianism, continual frustration and resentment, and the ultimate incomprehensibility of things — for which, too, there is a reason, and more than one in fact. There is an infinity of them, and I am about to describe — or, to be more accurate, to circumscribe — every single one.

574. An "installation" is the last resort of the talentless artist who, however, lacks the nerve to send to a gallery a blank canvas.

573. Every important problem in philosophy can be solved in a couple of sentences. It is the details that require more space. To be sure, the details too are important, but, philosophically at least, only to the extent that they make the brief solutions more understandable to those who, without them, would not be able to understand them. Apart from that, the details are also important to the scientists, since all the sciences have always begun as "details" taken by them from philosophical texts, and then carefully tested and greatly expanded on (regardless of the fact that no scientist would ever admit, or even realize this. It is in the nature of the scientist to have a limited view of the knowledge-forming process, including of the history, and even more of the prehistory, of his own science, and of course ultimately, and to an even greater extent, of science itself.)

572. Stupid, worthless and uneducated kids — average people — who come into contact with philosophy through my writings for the first time, and near-instantly turn into tinfoil-hat wearing boastful morons who can't even talk like normal people anymore but only in an absurd and monstrous parody of my writing style. I have been culling them from my forums for nearly a decade now, but they keep coming. I wonder how many thousands of them it takes to finally snag someone who is not retarded; who doesn't become even more retarded than he already is, by coming into contact with texts he has no right to and should, in an ideal society, even be physically restrained from reading.

571. What is a good actor? The film critics are unanimous: it is a jack of all trades, a "chameleon" who can transform himself at a moment's notice to all the lifeforms in existence, real or imagined. But I call bullshit on their retarded screed, and teach that there is no such thing as a "good actor", taken on his own, wrenched free of the film and the role with which he has been entrusted, and to which he has lent his performance. A good actor, then, to anyone who is not retarded, is an actor who is perfect for a given role: and if that ends up being only a single role, then so be it! and type-casted actors are type-casted precisely because they are exceedingly good at the role in which they have specialized, my dear pseudo-intellectual critics! which means that type-casting is not a disgrace but an achievement and a rare honor! — In short, many of the tropes of modern film criticism have evolved, not out of competition between films and film creators, but between the critics, and it is only natural that the winners of this contest would be those who are more interested in promoting their own "integrity" as critics over the integrity of the works they are supposed to be critiquing, which integrity none of them would hesitate to throw under a bus if that's what it took to appear more competent to their readers than their peers, as they continually demonstrate by their preference for jack of all trades actors as opposed to OBSCENELY SPECIALIZED PROFESSIONALS who place the integrity of the work at a higher priority than their own reputations as "good actors". — And I have yet to hear of a mechanic who judged the worth of his tools by how closely they approached universal function. In a real workshop, "multi-tools" are even considered useless. Only rank amateurs working on crude projects use them. I guess we need "tool critics" to come in and straighten us out on this too, as on a great deal of other subjects! God save us, and our arts and sciences, from professional critics! If we knew what's good for us we'd be paying them to shut up and stop scribbling!

570. I keep noticing these increasingly desperate and pathetic pop philosophers, like Richard Kulisz, the transhumanists and HBD morons, the "dark enlightenment" dudes and the retardosphere scribblers. Like pop musicians, who have no musical training and talent whatsoever, no rigor, no real and sustained discipline and drive in what they do, so do these "casual philosophers" and pop philosophers seem to me to be related to the domain of actual thought. "Self-taught hobbyism" is the most benign label that I could apply to them, and they all take such great pride in being self-taught! (whereas, among all the genuinely educated, having no teachers in such an advanced culture as ours counts, not as an honor, but as an intellectual death sentence). And like pop musicians, who borrow concepts, instruments, styles and techniques from real music, but never getting any far with them, never producing anything lasting, forever mired in and condemned to an eternal primitivism, so do these pop philosophers fare in the realm of thought. One could say the same thing for their writings as for Osho's poorly written and conceptually detestable mishmash of third-hand accounts of Western and Eastern philosophies: they are all, more or less, equally irredeemable and worthless. These pop philosophers show not the slightest acknowledgement in their writings that a philosophical tradition even exists, and that the intractable problems with which they are so incompetently grappling have been discussed ad nauseam for millennia by all the geniuses. — The aforementioned, by the way, should be distinguished from characters such as the French "New Philosophers", who at least acknowledge the philosophical tradition in their works, but simply SUCK UNFATHOMABLY in doing anything with it, thus restricting themselves to expensive shirts and fine dining, or straight up bad philosophy like the "analytic" Anglo-Saxons, and so on. — All these efforts, at the end of the day, are obviously inherently abortive, since contrary to what all these people seem to think, you can't defeat a beast by RUNNING AWAY FROM IT. There's only one solution: to GRAPPLE with the beast, which is to say, WITH THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, which of course presupposes that you have at least some inkling of it! In short: Don't be a pseud. Don't abortive. Be a man. Be a genius. — Or at least try to be one, the first step of which attempt would be... to see how you measure up against past geniuses, by making at least some kind of an effort to read them.
   Or keep scribbling mountains of stuff that will be washed away and be forgotten the moment you stop scribbling so much and some other blog starts getting more popular than yours. Whatever makes you happy, I guess — I am just sayin'.

569. Hatred of the rich is so wretched, it's such an obscenely malignant sentiment, that it is truly a masterstroke of deception that the rich-haters have managed to convince everyone (and even the poor rich people themselves!) that they hold the high moral ground! The low moral underground, more like! For what are riches? What does it mean to be rich? Examine the concept of money closely and you will see that all it means is that rich people are those to whom everyone else owes something; and in fact a great deal of things indeed! Otherwise they wouldn't be rich! Hatred of the rich is merely an attempt to get out of discharging a debt (and indeed a great number of debts!) that one has incurred, at one point or other, of one's own free will.

568. And ultimately, the fault for this too lies with us. Instead of making it clear to them, with every transfer of science and technology and every cultural accomplishment that we gave them, that they are our complete inferiors, we told them, and to ourselves, the lie of "equal cultures"! Is it in any wonder that in the end they believed it? They would have invented it themselves, eventually, if we hadn't first invented it for them, so even in that respect they owe us! It is truly astonishing how, even the decadent ideology with which they try to win back some self-respect — even that they didn't make themselves but simply took from us! In short, the plight of the inferior races is utterly irredeemable, so it's best to look away, as much as possible, and not think any more about these things than is absolutely necessary at any given moment.

567. Krauser's observation on this one thing was at least right: Arabs suck at war so they can only conquer by immigration and breeding. Same with Asians, blacks, etc. Problem of the future, when the foreigners outnumber whites in their own countries, coupled with the increasing enlightenment of whites. The other races cannot be enlightened AS RACES. A few individuals perhaps, but these will be the exceptions of exceptions. We have yet to hear of a single black, Arab, Chinese, Indian etc. person who doesn't immediately vomit on contact with philosophy. It is already the 21st century, and all philosophical scholars and commentators are still white! Even the kids who read my stuff, I've no doubt that they pick up only the most abstract ideas regarding space, time, etc., but when it comes to evolution, cultural superiority and so on, they might as well be Christians. What Chinese kid, even Chinese-American, would ever acknowledge the utter inferiority of Chinese culture (never mind its extinction)? Impossible to have friends from the inferior races in anything but a superficial manner. Impossible to discuss anything in depth with them. No matter how much you might like the black dude with whom you play basketball or the Indian kid who does LAN RTS with you, you can never discuss philosophy, culture, etc. with them. Even dating is a tricky subject (penis size, "white godhood" among colored girls, and so on). Moreover, you end up despising them as a group the more you come to realize what a terrible effect their arrival is having on your countries (and consequently, since our countries are where progress happens, on the fate of the planet and the species). In the end, civil war seems the only solution. Utter contempt for the inferior races who are utterly incapable of being anything more than little gears in this gigantic machine that we've created. Utter contempt for the Chinese doctor or the Indian nerd, who revere the little subsets of Western culture in which they fit, but despise, as a whole, the culture that produced them (and consequently the descendants of this culture: the white ones). Just wait until it becomes possible to mess with DNA. Only that can save us, for what Asian kid wants to live in a Western country and be at the bottom of the dating pole, when with some changes he can achieve white looks? The same with blacks and all the rest (they will start with shades of black, and end up like Michael Jackson). If we can bear their brutishness and refrain from breaking out in all-out war with them for just a little longer, they will wipe themselves out eventually, and spare us this wretched conflict. Maybe then, when they themselves have "whitewashed" their own culture, and even their genes, they'll be able to understand some philosophy, and come to terms with reality at last.

566. What is the use of time travel? To go back and change the past. No one wants a time travel machine to simply RE-EXPERIENCE the past, all of them want to CHANGE it — and THAT'S where they betray themselves. But to change the past means to also change the present and the future, all three of which taken together amount to YOU. There's no way around it: the desire for time travel means self-hatred.

565. Looking at a map of Athens's northern suburbs. Paradise. Who could compete with me after this upbringing? By the time I was 15 I had already won at everything. Already experienced entire dimensions of existence that the rest of them haven't even seen in their 30s and 40s. By 22 I was already ready for the spirit, whereas everyone else is in their 30s and still hate it. Books, sports, the Attic sun, all of my upbringing in pools, basketball courts, Schinias and Eretria... whereas e.g. the Brits reach their 30s and think that a week of sunshine is paradise. And when they get it, they know no better way to enjoy it than... to sit on a patch of grass all day and tan.

564. And who caused this pain? That is how you see that subhumans "know not what they do", i.e. that they are indeed not ultimately responsible for their actions. We are.

563. "Enjoy the decline!" is a popular catchphrase in the retardosphere. The meaning is that we are on a sinking boat so you might as well enjoy what you can WHILE YOU SINK. But I am not sinking at all! I am growing stronger every day! (and if you think that a culture that just figured out how to PRINT HUMAN ORGANS is declining, YOU at least are indeed declining, in intelligence and culture!) "Enjoy the decline" therefore means "I am sinking, and there's nothing I can do about it but to rationalize it". For a decline is by definition IMPOSSIBLE TO ENJOY, otherwise we wouldn't call it such! All behaviors associated with it, therefore, and proceeding directly from it, will either be genuinely pessimistic, or rationalizations of it. In summary, Western culture is by no means declining, but those who think it is definitely are, and all they are saying is merely an attempt to make this fact appear decent to themselves and become bearable by them. — "This alone, I surmise, constitutes the actual physiological cause of ressentiment, vengefulness, and the like: a desire to deaden pain by means of affects." (Nietzsche)

562. Maternity is such a terrifying condition, and at the same so vital to our species, that it excuses and justifies the worst of female traits. Makes them appealing even. The PUAs will say this is white knighting, but the PUAs are sterile retards who need textbooks to get laid, so no one cares, or should care, about their opinion, on this matter and most others.

561. I despise the majority of my devoted followers far more than the majority of my opponents. My opponents, after all, are merely intellectual illiterates of no account to anyone let alone to world affairs, while my followers actually desecrate my writings on a regular basis, if by no other means than by simply having the gall to pretend to read them.

560. It is not enough to merely understand that subhumans are reactive. Hatred of subhumans is subhuman; it too is reactive. One must go beyond that, and understand that, at the end of the day, it was we humans who created the subhumans; they did not exist before us. There were no subhumans in prehistoric times, for example. Neanderthals were human. Dogs may as well be human, for that matter, compared to subhumans. Dogs do not lie about and constantly demonize their obvious superiors. Dogs do not believe, let alone pretend to believe, like the subhumans, in equality. They don't preach that you will "go to hell" or "suffer bad karma" for doing the same things that every other lifeform since the beginning of the universe has been doing (i.e. killing and eating other lifeforms), ALL THE WHILE KILLING AND EATING OTHER LIFEFORMS. To this day not a single prehistoric homo sapiens has been shown to have been subhuman (i.e. to subscribe to the inverted value system and self-deceiving fraudulent behavior that began, in the Western tradition, with Judaism and subsequently spread to the entire globe in the form of Christianity and its secular offshoots: cultural Marxism and liberalism).
   One must grasp the nature of the subhumans' inverted existence. The weak thinkers (manoretards) point their fingers at them: they have found the cause of Western degeneration! Never mind that the Western world is by no means degenerating, and is in fact obviously scaling new heights of power and accomplishment with every passing day. The manoretards themselves are, at least partly, a reaction to the reaction of subhumans, and that's why they hate them so much. And all of them are a reaction to me and to my ancestors, which is why, not only do I not hate anyone, but I can retain sufficient clarity of thought in the midst of this cosmic struggle to the point of realizing, and explaining, why all these poor wretches are so closely tied to me and to my life choices, as to forever owe me their entire existence...

559. And, at any rate, we all end up getting what we want in the end. I get the fight with the aliens and the Big Bang, and you get the "something deeper" that you want through your complete and utter incomprehension of every genuinely deep and meaningful process in the world, so we should all be happy. As we indeed are, otherwise we wouldn't be who we are, and this world wouldn't even exist, let alone in the exact configuration that it exists, and has always existed and always will, amen.

558. We build our Overman, and the aliens build theirs, then they fight each other, and the Big Bang happens and we start over. "Is that it?" Yes, that's it. It is your shallowness that wants something "deeper" (i.e. something you can't understand), and it's my depth that wants something shallow (i.e. the opposite to me so that I can be destroyed in the process towards it and begin again). All the rest are excuses.

557. Ever seen a mother hold her dead child in her arms and cry? That is the cry of a hyper-predator who sees its hopes for world domination dashed. And you were told she was being "selfless"...

556. Socrates was really the last, and the greatest, of the sophists (which is why he became the most well-known and respected of them), for he was the one who took the very last step needed to achieve the ultimate proficiency and excellence in the philosophy of life expounded on and propagated by them: to really believe his own lies and sophistries.

555. In fact a mini-"recurrence" can be observed even in our limited water-glass experiment, since the initial wave will "recur", even if in significantly diminished form, for as many oscillations as it takes for its energy to be completely dissipated. Obviously, if dissipation were impossible, the wave would recur, in identical fashion, forever. That's how simple it is to understand, and prove, the eternal recurrence. Isn't it hilarious then how every single Nietzsche scholar of the past 130 years has questioned this blatantly self-evident concept? (self-evident, obviously, once Nietzsche has explained it to you). Some of them went as far as to try to prove that Nietzsche's philosophy could stand, largely unaffected, even without it! That's how convinced they were of its falsity! And yet it's right there, in perfectly unambiguous terms, in the man's notebooks: “The law of conservation of energy demands eternal recurrence". That's all it took to send me on the path of creating this little proof and thought-experiment that I just explained here. Maybe philosophical scholars simply haven't learned elementary physics? And maybe people who have learned elementary physics do not read philosophy? That's certainly my take on the educational background and intellectual habits of all those people. — William Plank, on the other hand (author of the Quantum Nietzsche), went the opposite way. He was so convinced of the reality of the concept (which is to say that he was so FASCINATED by it, and WANTED it to be true so badly), and so motivated by Nietzsche's references (in his notes) of his impending "proof" of it (a proof that never materialized, beyond the little snippet of it that I just quoted — which pretty much amounts to a proof, as I have explained, for anyone who understands even a little physics), that he set out to create his own proof, a bizarre extrapolation on the basis of Eigen's and Winkler's glass-bead games which, according to Plank, "cannot be disproved". And indeed I can't disprove it, if for no other reason than because I can't understand it. I can't understand, that is, how the laws (or lack of laws) that govern the configurations of beads in a glass-bead game are a proof of anything, least of all of the eternal recurrence; while Plank seems to think that merely repeating a few dozens times that something has been proved proves it. On top of the fact that, even if his proof is somehow valid, it's still superfluous next to my immeasurably simpler and more commonsensical one, never mind Nietzsche's ultra-succinct one-line note that says everything to those who know anything, the complete obliviousness towards which is what betrays that Plank hasn't really understood anything.

554. We all know what will happen if we give a little shake to a glass half-filled with water or some other liquid: a little "wave" will form on one side and travel to the other, and the disturbance will gradually die down as the kinetic energy from our shake is dissipated by means of this disturbance, and radiated to the walls of the glass and the surrounding air. The end result, after a sufficient length of time, will be a flat and still water surface, until we decide to give the glass another shake at some later time. Certainly none of us would expect that the wave and the resulting disturbance could "recur" on their own, without any external input, and would rightly regard such an event as "magic" (which is to say as impossible), and anyone who predicted and expected it as a "retard". But what seems like common sense on a local scale, becomes NONSENSE when we try to apply it at the scale of the universe, since at that scale there exists neither an "outside" from which energy can be initially transferred, nor to which it can be later dissipated. Any "disturbance" at that level then, will have to be, not only necessarily inherent in the system (ruling out any "external", "transcendental" influence), but also, and for the same reason, necessarily eternally recurring.
   I have just proved both the existence of the eternal recurrence and the non-existence of "transcendental" beings and causes, and whoever denies my proof either doesn't understand elementary physics, or what the word "universe" means, or both. End of story.

553. Black and white photography and cinema have dealt irreparable damage to our understanding and appreciation of the era in which they flourished: they have made us think of it as a dull, bleak, and depressing era — as a black and white era. Let the pseudo-intellectuals say what they will about this, but the truth is obvious to everyone who has eyes: that color is, in all respects and from all viewpoints, superior to the lack of it for anyone who is not color blind.

552. There is, of course, a lot of merit in the ongoing nature vs. nurture debate, but only for the purposes of practical, everyday applications. For as to the ultimate solution of the dispute, that's already settled. No research or experiments are needed: it is a simple philosophical problem whose solution I can provide with barely 5 seconds of thinking. So yes, culture does indeed influence human development, but who creates culture in the first place, if not humans themselves, and therefore human biology and genetics? It is true that SOME DAY our culture will hopefully get to the stage of directly determining our descendants' genetics, as opposed to leaving them up to the crapshoot of sexuated procreation, but even when that day arrives, it will still be our initial genetics that created the culture that reached the point of being able to directly influence our genetics (as opposed to, for example, the culture of African baboons or Greenlandic Inuits or whatever). In other words, the past, the past, the past, and nothing but the past: The moral in all this is that you can't flee from your past, gentlemen and gentlewomen, no matter how dearly you would like to! (which is what all appeals to the supremacy of culture over biology ultimately amount to). There are no "blank slates" or "new beginnings" — these conceptions are merely the delirious hallucinations of the genetically weak and culturally desperate among us: every step forwards and upwards will necessarily have to be built on every other step taken hitherto — all the way back to the Big Bang — and no wishful thinking or verbal gymnastics have ever or will ever suffice to make up for any deficiencies there. Or do you find that surprising the realization that the ultimate structural soundness of a building depends, first and above all, on the structural integrity of its foundations?

551. Is it a coincidence that the most celebrated religious figure of all time — Jesus of Nazareth — and the most well-known philosopher — the Athenian Socrates — never wrote anything? Chances are they didn't even know how... And that was just as well, because, as history since then has clearly shown, their adherents can't read either.

550. What is the difference between criminals-as-noblemen, and petty criminals (i.e. the vast majority of them)? Only this: that the former ultimately give back more than they take, which makes them net givers, while the latter only take, which makes them parasites. (And note that this applies to all lifeforms, to all life ultimately, since this is what life is: the gift that keeps on giving. All the rest is parasitism.)

549. Whoever is shocked at the actions of the IS clowns only needs a refresher of modern history to realize that, even in pure aggressiveness and brutality, the Arabs are no match for us any more than any other subhuman race. "Hitler vs. al-Baghdadi" is all you need to say to realize the cosmic gap in power and effectiveness that separates our races. Compared to us they are children playing cops and robbers. — "Why are we tolerating them then, if they are so comically weak and ineffective?" — Precisely for this reason: because they are comically ineffective. If they were causing any real damage they'd be long crushed. (And note that this goes also for every other reactionary group ever: from hippies to real criminals. It's part of the richness and greatness of Western civilization that it can tolerate the existence of so many millions of losers and retards, while still forging full steam ahead with its goal — the creation of the Overman — without skipping a single beat. The degenerates call this steamroller effect of our culture — the marginalization of all groups not contributing to our culture's goal, and their reduction to clown- and freak-show status by our media — "social alienation", "materialism", "globalization", "desensitization", or any number of other nasty names; while between us it is known as simply "power".)

548. "Why does every discussion about icycalm lead to the same thing? I.e. almost no points of his are discussed, and everyone tries as hard as they can to halt the discussion entirely." — Because deep down they know I am right, since all of Existence reveres and praises the genius. The meanness and the baseness of subhumans are merely the way that this particular form of life praises.

547. Baudrillard is my nihilistic counterpart (bemoaning reversibility as rendering all our efforts pointless, instead of glorifying it as an essential and ingenious mechanism of an astonishingly well-designed and world-encompassing game), as Schopenhauer was Nietzsche's (lambasting the will as something reprehensible that's worthy of being "negated", instead of celebrating it as the most spiritual manifestation and justification of existence). And in both cases the healthy philosophy follows closely on the heels of the nihilistic one (indeed, was inspired partly by it) within a margin of a mere couple of decades. I am convinced that this is no coincidence.

546. Why do subhumans believe that claiming that someone is powerful is an insult? Because hatred of power — which is to say reaction to it — is the very essence of the existence of subhumans. The finger-pointing followed by the damning cry of "Power!" is their call to arms: the rallying cry that gathers together all the subhumans, like the cry of "Brains!" does to zombies in zombie apocalypse movies, and sets them loose on the destruction of whatever strong, healthy and proud human or group of humans has lately enraged them and provoked their fury. In our times, this may be the rich (the "capitalists"), the beautiful, the intelligent, the Americans or the Jews: any human group whatever that has turned out well, that has managed to distinguish itself and achieve something. And that is how, through their near-automatic, almost-instinctive opposition, the subhumans make it harder for those successful groups of people to become even more successful. Subhumans, in other words, as far as our planet is concerned, are the sentient component of ressentiment/reaction/reversibility, or whatever other name you want to call the built-in, automatic difficulty-adjustment mechanism of the universe; of the "videogame" known as "Life".

545. Anti-Semites: "Jews! Listen up and listen well! You are the most powerful group of individuals on the planet!" — Jews: "Ummm, not quite true, but okay. Thank you?"

544. The Jews are said to be "the tribe that runs the West". But if you are going to go that far, why stop there? Why not say that they also run the East? At which point they might as well run the North and the South too, while they are at it, or the entire solar system and galaxy, as they'd certainly be said to do if those making the accusations had ever heard of astronomy and astrophysics. And if you get that far it's only a short step further to say the Jews run the universe itself, which would be tantamount to regarding Jews as gods, as a race of divine beings! But the funniest thing of all in this absurd business, is that the central assumption in the conspiracy theorists' "accusations" is that claiming someone is powerful is an insult. That's how you realize the kind of resentful, vindictive scum you are dealing with, when you hear of such absurd bleatings.

543. Whoever thinks that some group of individuals "runs the world" today is a retard. The LACK of such a group is precisely the greatest problem that we are facing today (besides all philosophical problems, all of which are about to be solved in the next few pages). That's why I say IF ONLY the elders of Zion ran the world today, IF ONLY the Americans were really imperialistic. I'd take even businessmen directing things over the near-absolute chaos that prevails today. Anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism as ideologies are merely the logical end result and ultimate culmination of resentful feelings, since Jews, Americans and capitalists are some of the best, most valuable people that exist today, and that's PRECISELY why they are so hated (not to speak of Jewish-American capitalists, which as far as the masses are concerned may as well be the earthly manifestation of the Devil). So wherever these attitudes are encountered, pay heed! You are dealing with an extremely weak, stupid and resentful creature. — So who really runs the world today? Democracy! (in animal biology terms, the herd instinct). Which to be sure is far superior to an anarchic dissolution of society and a return to jungle conditions, but we have done so much better than this in the past and, if all goes well, and God willing (and I am willing), I am sure we'll do much better in the future.

542. What are riches? They are inheritance, more specifically genetic inheritance. In a game that began billions of years ago the idea that one can become "rich" in 20 or 30 years is retarded; it is itself merely a symptom of genetic poverty for which we even have a name today ("stupidity"). And if you are genetically rich, getting hold of a few suitcases of colored paper is not such a big deal as the genetically poor make it out to be. Among the genetically rich, the difficulty level of this endeavor is even considered "laughable".

541. That rich people are powerful is one of the greatest mystifications being perpetuated by the slaves. There were rich people in Plato's and Alexander's time too, but who remembers them today? And no one remembers them precisely because they were not powerful enough to accomplish anything worth remembering for long. It all comes back to the slaves not having the faintest idea of what power is. Their glorification of the rich is merely a psychological projection: the slaves want to become rich, hence they glorify those who already are so. It all makes perfect sense when you consider it from their perspective. But their perspective is small and narrow — it is stupid — since they themselves are only small and narrow and stupid beings. Power does not end with riches then, it merely begins there, since it is only once you are already rich (as Plato and Alexander both were) that you can begin thinking about real power (whether you already have it and can expend it, I mean, not whether you can grab it...)

540. Ecclesiastes: "For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion." — That's certainly what dogs think, at any rate, but maybe he should have asked a lion for his opinion, at some point, good old Ecclesiastes.

539. Whatever Nietzsche might have said about the fundamental opposition between empire and culture, it seems that, in the long run, being demoted from a superpower to an insignificant parochial state wreaks havoc also to the intellectual prowess of a nation. That's why the Greeks haven't had anything interesting to say in over 2,000 years, while the Italians have been effectively silent for almost 500. So as the center of gravity of Western civilization moved ever westwards and northwards, so did the centers of its cultural production — until they hit the English Channel, that is, at which point the simplest and crudest intellectual forms did cross over (history, mathematics, economics, and so on), but all the most complex and refined ones stayed behind, primarily in France and, for a little while, the Germanic nations. For the Anglos have always been barbarians, culturally, compared to the continentals, while the Americans, who had to cross a much larger body of water than the Anglos to arrive at their promised land, could almost be categorized as savages (which they HAD to be, in order to colonize an entire continent with little more than horses and single-shot rifles while ruthlessly wiping out the worthless indigenous populations they found there, just as the Anglos earlier on HAD to reject and deny the French intellectual dominance, if for no other reason than to avoid being entirely assimilated by it, since the two nations were almost constantly at war with each other). — And as for me? I am beyond all of this petty nationalistic bullshit. I combine the unmatched European intellectual tradition with the practical American mindset of getting down to business and making stuff happen. I am part Greek, part American, all Human (and super-Human). I am the Overman.

538. I am at point where I no longer even see people anymore, all I see is inferior genes. Everywhere around me. As far as the eye can see.

537. Twice and thrice the good, said the Greeks, when they still knew what the good was — indeed, when they were the premier authorities on the subject. And if the merely "good" should be experienced "twice and thrice", how many times should the perfect — i.e. the universe — be experienced?

536. You know what time it is, when the "relentless march of technology" starts to weary you? It's time to die.

535. It never ceases to amaze me how the tone of subhumans' blogs changes periodically to match the little rollercoaster of their authors' petty, laughable little emotions. And it never ceases to amaze them how my tone remains consistent throughout the months, years, and soon enough even the decades during which I have been writing. "Doesn't he experience ups and downs in his life?", they all wonder. Sure I do, and my ups are infinitely higher than your ups, just like my downs make your downs look a pretty good time. But when I am down I simply — don't write. I can't write, because I am too busy putting all my energy into overcoming whatever obstacle has managed to get me down. The idea of writing in a depressed state seems incomprehensible to me. What is the fucking point? It is even indecent, in the sense that it can't possibly consist of anything other than whining and hatred, both of which are almost as bad for the reader to read as for the author to feel and communicate. The only way I can fathom writing in such a state is if the author has given up on ever overcoming the obstacles that are causing his depression. Which, come to think of it, pretty much describes every subhuman.

534. I lied in the preface to the Genealogy. Cinema is the most relaxing artform to me too. Understandably so, since it is the absolute zenith, the glorification of passivity. For how is the cinema defined? As the combination of ALL dimensions, EXCEPT interactivity.

533. I don't like Flaubert, but at least he was a hard worker. He may not have been a great artist, but at least he had respect for art.

532. The philosopher and the leader are the two rarest and most valuable kinds of homo sapiens. In the history of the planet there have barely been a few dozen significant philosophers, and at best a few thousand significant leaders. The rarest: Plato's hallucination: the philosopher-king. Perhaps Marcus Aurelius came closer to that ideal.
   Finally we can understand the rationale of the origins of monarchy and the theocratic system of government: compared to the average subhuman subject, the philosopher-king may as well have been one of the gods, or at any rate their direct descendant. Not only is this a rational and expedient assumption to make, what's more it's even the correct one.

531. Nature sure is great. Wanna know what else nature is? It's boring.

530. Watched an English semi-amateur actresses's promo video (whom I tried to pick up the other day), and then Out of the Furnace. It is only then that you realize how insanely talented everyone in Hollywood is. The extras in Hollywood films are more talented than most of the protagonists in Eurotripe.

529. Mandela is famous for spending 27 years in prison. — Subhuman heroes.

528. I do not like the "born again". They are rash, spiteful towards their past and towards anyone who hasn't been "born again". Meanwhile, I was born once. I arrived into this world complete, when I stepped out of my mother's womb, hit the ground running, and never looked back; while every single "manosphere" retard I've heard about seems to have spent half his life being an utter loser before his sudden, quasi-religious moment of "enlightenment". But nothing significant has ever come out of those who were so impressed by words that their entire life changed, and reversed directions, in an instant. It's just another form of weakness. I would have much preferred them in their original condition. Now they are neurotic, mistrustful, full of concealed and overt resentment towards what they were and what they had been; towards themselves, ultimately. They are broken men — that's what doing a 180 half-way through your life does to you. They are useless.

527. "You are like a drug", she told me once. Who needs the future, when you have such a past?

526. The argument between socialism and capitalism comes down to this: to those who, when left to their own devices, naturally rise above the mean, and to those who fall below. The former will be proponents of capitalism, the latter of socialism. The former are talented and hard-working, the latter talentless and lazy. And all this is proved by the failure of socialism, and in particular that of communism: its ultimate manifestation — as if a group of habitual losers at the individual level would be able to create, by pooling together all their weaknesses and failures, a winning combination!
   But it is plain that, as they lose on the individual level — as individuals — they will ultimately lose on the group level too. The only reason they temporarily succeeded at a few points in history is because they were facing even greater losers: a complacent and degenerate aristocracy.

525. Jeremy Irons in Night Train to Lisbon. A master actor among a group of amateurs. His expressions, his reactions, his authenticity: all of them are off the scale. The difference between him and the rest of the cast is that he seems as if he BELONGS to the movie's world, whereas all the rest of them belong in ours.

524. Or how about when subhumans delete controversial Twitter- or blog-posts? Something unpleasant happens to them, then they go on Twitter or their blog and write long impassioned posts about it, and then they almost immediately turn around and delete them. And it happens EVERY. FUCKING. TIME. So why do they keep writing them!? If you know you can't hold your ground and will take everything back the moment you receive the slightest complaint, why not simply not write anything to begin with? Besides which, the offending posts always seem to end up screencapped by someone and posted all over the fucking place, SO WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT? You committed one stupidity by posting stuff you KNEW you were never going to stick to, and then you "correct" this by deleting stuff you KNOW everyone will end up seeing anyway!
   It's just incomprehensible to me. But I guess that's just how piss-poor the future projection of subhumans is, and how poorly these people respond to "pressure" (in quotation marks because what they call "pressure" I call "tickling").

523. W. H. Auden: "We are all here on earth to help others; what on earth the others are here for I don't know." — To be helped. Thus inequality receives its eternal sanction, even from those who myopically claim that they would like to eradicate it.

522. The thing with Baudrillard is how all his books end with a whimper, a poof, a lot of psychobabble. With the exception of the early ones — e.g. The Consumer Society's few brave noises at the end — they all follow this pattern. Their strength may lie in the beginning or the middle — anywhere but the end. The exact opposite from Nietzsche's, whose later works start slowly and build up at the end with almost a kind of explosion. Another point of the difference in temper between the two great thinkers.
   With me it is otherwise. There is violence everywhere, in almost each and every paragraph I write. I can say with Wittgenstein that "I destroy, I destroy, I destroy". There is so much sickness and decay on this planet that I cannot in all good conscience do otherwise: after all, the almost complete annihilation of the so-called "human race" is my task; theoretically at first, and once the theory is done moving on to the practical stage.
   The fact is that after the analysis is over you are supposed to close up your word-processor, put aside your books and papers, and go out there and make it happen. The book itself is the first step in that process, and certainly a very powerful one, as it is the herald call that marshals your forces for the offensive, but it is only a step. There are many other steps to it, thank god, otherwise the world would be scarcely better than a text adventure game.

521. The genealogy of the slave begins with the development of human groups which have become strong enough to see the hunt for lower animals as something very easy and beneath them, and who now discern a more effective and promising way of increasing their power (i.e. of unleashing the latent power that is within them): by preying on other humans. Slavery begins here, though strictly speaking, if one observes closely enough, it can also be discerned in the lower animals and indeed also in plants in various forms and guises — but never in such a highly organized fashion. For this is what separates the human tribes from those of the lower animals: the massively increased degree of complexity and organization.
   The benefits to be derived from preying on humans are commensurate with the dangers. Hunting humans is the most dangerous sport on earth, for man is not only the most cunning animal, but also, as aforesaid, the most well-organized. Whereas tigers and elephants can be taken on one at a time, or at worst in small groups, attacking even one human triggers a very large number of them. Thus the hunter must, on the one hand be as well organized himself as possible, with as many members in his war party, etc., and at the same time he must have a sense of the daredevil about him, a blind thirst for carnage and destruction, a slight contempt for injuries, ignominies and even death. The hunter of the human beast must be to a certain extent — above death. Because that's what he's probably going to get, sooner or later, in his pursuit of this particular type of prey.

520. Woman is the perfect PERSONAL slave. Mothers and wives. But the perfect slave is man.

519. On Heidegger. Consider the fact that he began his book as a dissertation, and bothered to publish it only to get his degree — and thus start making money. The entire enterprise was motivated by nothing other than money (and this can be plainly seen in the text, even if one had not the slightest knowledge of the historical context of its creation). For after he began earning money he simply never bothered touching the work again. He made no move to finish it — or even simply to continue it. And here he doesn't have the excuse of other philosophers, who were still working when death found them. Heidegger had so much time after he gave up writing that he even became embroiled in politics — even politics attracted him more than his pathetic, botched attempts at philosophizing.

518. The problem with porn is not that it exists but that it's not taken seriously enough; that it's so ugly. All you see is ugly models, bad directors, low budgets. But two alpha individuals going at it is an amazing sight, but also one guaranteed to arouse ressentiment to the point of making the spectacle too painful to look at for the majority of viewers. Such a treatment would at any rate raise everyone's copulation standards, which after all is what art is supposed to do. That's why I think that Hollywood should get into the porn business. Remember the latest 300's sex scene? His penis should be going in her vagina, right there, on the silver screen, to really glorify sex, to make people feel bad for sleeping with those beneath them. (Of course if any of this happened, and if women's standards were raised in this way, we'd never hear the end of it from the PUAs. But maybe that would be a hint for us to put an end to them, if you get my meaning, or at least to the uglier among them, which is to say the vast majority of them?)

517. The entire "pseudo-concept generation" faggotry is nothing more than a blatant, pathetic attempt to copyright concepts! Oh, the ancients are turning in their graves! You fucking slave pseudo-philosophers! A situation the ancients did not know of because they were all rich and copyright laws didn't exist! They wanted REAL POWER with their books, not your pathetic fame or money! That is why their books shine, and will keep being read and treasured for entire centuries and millennia more than yours! Refreshing, is what their books are! Yours drive even the greatest minds to depression and despair!

516. Three orders of thinking beings.
   The religious believers are totally irrational (i.e. it is impossible to discuss anything with them).
   The scientific believers will take rationality to their graves — and therefore fail to understand anything about the universe beyond some petty, narrow facts about each individual science.
   And finally, the philosophical believers, who operate wholly on the level of rationality, while recognizing the irrational foundations of all rationality. They can, in other words, rationally demonstrate their irrationality. They operate, therefore, on a higher, third-level rationality, a rationality which the scientific believers are not rational enough to understand (not to speak of the religious ones).

515. On media violence desensitizing people. It in fact does quite the opposite: it sensitizes them. It reacquaints the slaves with all these situations and states of soul towards which their wretched cubicle slavery had totally desensitized them, to the point of even making them appear incredible. Suddenly they are credible, and if they even get to the point of becoming commonplace and banal, so much the better I say.

514. Baudrillard's concept of hyperreality is bogus, a holdover from the last century when in order to become famous in pseudo-intellectual circles all you had to do was coin some stupid new word and tie it to a pseudo-concept, which became all the more believable because no one could understand it, and thus refute it. But all these tricks are up now. With my arrival on the scene, all pseudo-concepts will be laid bare — it is impossible to deceive me. One would have to have more intellect than me in order to do so, but if any such person arrived why would he need deception? Deception in this sense is only a tool of the weak — and Baudrillard was weak.
   His weakness can be seen in every single one of his analyses. Analyzing the consumer society yet failing to draw any conclusions from this analysis on how one should act when one found oneself in such a society. What good is the analysis, then, if no conclusions can be drawn from it? And what a pathetic little line he ends the whole thing with! "We will await for events to smash this white Mass!" He will "await" — i.e. sit on his ass while glued for information to the media he so flagrantly despises — while being ready to scribble at any moment. To scribble before and after — but to participate in the events, let alone be instrumental in bringing them about — oh, no. That work is too dirty for the clean hands of an academic. So let's just wait and scribble.
   All his analyses are weak in this manner, even the last one, in which he fails to draw any conclusions at all really from his game theory, even going as far as to assert that there is no reason to exalt the rules of the game! This screams to me: bad player, bad player, bad player! But what, deep down, did Baudrillard really know about games? The only game he played was the writing game, and in this, in this confined and limited context of pseudo-intellectual Frenchmen of the twentieth century, he was indeed a master. But the pseudo-intellectual game is not the only game there is, nor even the most important, and drawing your lessons for all games from this little narrow experience is bound to lead you astray.

513. Even worse for the self-esteem of the blacks than the fact that the whites enslaved them, was that they set them free. So fatal was this blow to the black man's image of himself that, had they they realized at the time what was happening to them, they would have asked, and even begged, to remain slaves.

512. That the master is lazy and sits around all day and does nothing, is a prejudice of the slave. That is what they say between themselves to make their slavery appear decent to them. The truth is that the master exerts himself far beyond what the slave would ever be able to cope with — after all, he was strong enough to enslave them lol. And then on top of that he risks himself more — so that all the cares and anguishes of such risks are added to the physical and mental exertion that he daily imposes on himself as a matter of course. The slave would be instantly crushed if the master's load was suddenly placed upon him. Courage, daring, fearlessness and self-sacrifice are all qualities that the master is called upon to display every day, and qualities which the slave obviously lacks, for if he didn't lack them he wouldn't have ended up a slave in the first place. Or at any rate he would have atoned for his ancestors' mistakes, if it was their failures which resulted in him being born a slave, and overcome his slavery, like Spartacus for instance, among numerous such examples.

511. Žižek says that "the celebration of 'minorities' and 'marginals' is the predominant majority position", and yet the biggest grossing movies feature white heterosexual protagonists etc., which means that the reality on the street is the exact opposite to that which dominates the journalistic garbage that pseudo-intellectuals like Žižek et al. who never leave their rooms mistake for reality and the "majority position". Such rubbish notions can be overcome by discarding the idea of "mankind" as commonly held, and breaking it down into groups and analyzing those instead. So the straight white male prefers to watch straight white movies, and only pays lip service to minorities because of the pressure exerted on him by the aforementioned journalistic and pseudo-intellectual garbage, while the minorities do not pay lip service: they really defend the view that they are equal; but they are, after all, minorities, so there's nothing they can do to replace straight white movies with gay black movies or whatever. Girls say they are independent feminists but in bed they want to be fucked hard and have their hair pulled, politicians say they work for equality but each country tries to outdo each other at everything, etc. The only unifying element in all of these behaviors, and countless more like them, is HYPOCRISY, which should come as no surprise considering that everyone involved in them is subhuman.
   The reality on the street, the everyday reality, of interaction between individuals, has nothing at all to do with any ideology besides the one that my predecessors and I teach, and no one really believes any ideology apart from ours. They may say that they believe something else, but when they act, they act in perfect accordance with our beliefs and theories; which is why we are the geniuses here and they are subhuman.

510. "Is a holistic approach to science viable?" Sure it is, and we even have a name for it, we call it "philosophy", and it even predates science, because it was precisely what created it. But explanations such as this are of no use. No one really cares about what happened 2,500 years ago any more than they care about what'll happen 2,500 years from now. No one except philosophers that is, the "holistic scientists" who insist on including everything in their theories, even eternity itself if need be.

509. On Roosh and Krauser, the "manosphere", self-help ideologues and other internet pseudo-intellectuals. Why do they fail, apart from genetics and upbringing? Even if they had had the genetics and the upbringing, they have no interest in reading what has been done before them (and that's because they don't have them). They have heard the big names, but they have not taken an interest in reading them. They have nothing resembling the childlike wonder about the world of the intellect that is so absolutely essential to making any progress in it. These wretched little souls REALLY DO believe that they have something unique to contribute that the hundreds of geniuses who have already written have not contributed, and moreover, and which is even worse, that what they have to contribute is a COMPLETE view of things — a philosophy! But you are nowhere near being a complete individual yourself, how COULD you have a complete view of things? The result: utter failure to even measure up to standards hundreds and thousands of years old, never mind to modern standards (which is to say to mine).
   They have not read, and what little they've read they've not understood, so they have not felt the POWER of the really great thinkers — a power which, had they felt it, would have SCARED THEM TO DEATH of ever trying to measure up to such lofty, exacting, and merciless standards — to such practically impossible standards. In their little social and online environments they are the strongest, so they have a wildly inaccurate estimation of their own strength. Like sparring with your uncles, unaware that there exist professional boxing leagues and heavyweight champions of the world, and deducing from that little experience that you are a great boxer. Their combined writings do not amount to A SINGLE aphorism of a great thinker. And what little of value they do say has, unbeknown to them, already been said decades and centuries before and with much more style and flair. It's no accident, after all, that no one ever quotes them. Neither is it an accident that their books never survive. Solipsism does not work here (any more than it works elsewhere). If you are not even aware of the competition you have precisely zero chances of beating them, much less of realizing that there is no competition at all, and that if you REALLY had something new and unique to contribute, it could only be by standing on the shoulders of giants. Instead you are in the valley — and on your KNEES moreover — screaming your petty little bullshit while totally unaware that there even exists such a thing as giants. And the pseudo-intellectual comedy continues.

508. The (thoroughly democratic) idea that a single set of circumstances can admit of numerous valid interpretations is so thoroughly mistaken that it refutes itself.

507. The solution to the racial issue will come, not from politicians or ideologues, but once more from the scientists and engineers, at that point where skin color and facial features will become choices, as opposed to destinies. And it is then that everyone will at last become white.

506. Is it okay to judge a book by its cover or are appearances deceptive? Beggars, etc. But that's the majority of men! You pass me by and I look like a skater kid to you: it's okay to make the assumption that I am not a philosopher. You were wrong in this one instance, but in EVERY other instance of the hundreds of thousands of skaters you've passed by in your life you were right. If you had suspended your judgement on the matter you would have been obliged to talk in depth with every single one of them in order to establish if they are philosophers or not. But you can't live this way. To NOT judge continually by appearances is so idiotic, indeed impossible — and that's why no one does it — that, if you were determined to really live your life this way (instead of merely PRETENDING TO, like the pseudo-intellectuals), you'd be signing your death warrant. These are the borderline cases. But to deny the validity of the rule because of the existence of exceptions is idiotic (indeed, subhuman). — If I am really a philosopher you will also encounter me in another context, by coming across something I wrote somewhere, and then you'll have the chance to redress the mistake you made when you dismissed me on account of my appearance (which, as I've explained was anyway not a mistake). You may even come to realize why I dress the way I do. Because skater fashion rocks, and every other way of dressing — both for males and females — is, for the most part, an error.

505. The IS leaders. Clowns. But I understand them perfectly. Under their circumstances, I would also do what they do. Because what they do is fun, and dying has nothing to do with it. It's even part of the attraction. When the Arabs produce no more people like them, they'll be a dead race.

504. An agnostic is what you get after you have removed the religious ressentiment out of an atheist.

503. Why do the stupidest men never change? Because they are incapable of learning anything. Why do the wisest men never change? Because they already know everything. And so it is that mediocre men, who can indeed learn (but not too much), confuse the worst men with the best ones, because some of the most superficial aspects of their behavior appear similar.

502. It was the Europeans who, first among the cultures of the earth, invented atheism, and even went as far as to elevate it to a religion (the religion of "leave me alone, I don't need anyone"); a necessary first step to the further development of thinking of themselves as gods (i.e. to the religion of "not only do I not need anyone, but everyone else needs me; the future needs me — and therefore also the entire past).

501. Baudrillard: "This means that the subject and the object are in a sense predestined. There is no dissociation between them — nor any original identity — there is only an inextricable reciprocity."

500. Tenerife. On the bus to the south of the island. Haven't left my little town in weeks, and now I am at once assaulted by infinite blue vistas and the neverending stream of mankind of the highway. And then it comes to me. A thought of thoughts. The only reason this entire planet, and even this universe, exist, is so that I can analyze them.

499. What does it mean to be civilized? It means to be engaged in the net of exchange. But exchange leads to specialization, and specialization leads to Zarathustra's "inverse cripple": him who has "too much of one thing, and too little of everything else". Civilization is merely a means, the goal is the complete being.

498. The Chinese are not Chinese. The Arabs are not Arab. Your cultures are dead. Not only are you 90 percent Western and 10 percent your own culture today, but that 10 percent of your culture that you are so stubbornly preserving is precisely what's preventing you from competing with us on equal terms, losers.

497. Homosexuals have serious psychological problems because there are so few of them. They are a minority, and this makes it hard for them to adjust to and live in a world which is dominated by people who are very different from them. The result is that they spend their entire lives wrestling with their identities, trying to reconcile their values with those of the people who are on top. Black people spend their entire lives concerning themselves with their blackness, cripples with their disabilities, ethnic minorities with their marginalized cultures, and so on and so forth. This makes it both annoying for us to interact with them, and it also makes it very difficult for them to succeed in a world dominated by people who are happy and secure with their identities, and who are therefore far better able to focus on goals external to them — which is how the world is shaped. It is this shaping that leads to the domination of a sexual orientation, a race, or an ethnicity, and it is this domination which CREATES the minorities which then proceed to spend all their energy neurotically spinning about their identities, which merely serves to further marginalize them, and so on to infinity.
   The behavior of minorities is a negative feedback loop from which only an event comparable in effect to a miracle can save them. And that serves them right, for ALLOWING themselves to BECOME a minority in the first place. Nothing can be done about it now. The sexual war was won a billion years ago, the racial and ethnic ones half a millennium, and all that's left for the defeated to do now, in the aftermath of those complete and devastating for them victories of the opposing camp, as is indeed being done, is to patch up their wounds and count the victims.

496. The counterpart strategy to "fighting for peace" would be "peace-ing for war". And just as the former has nothing to do with peace (since one never fights for "peace", strictly speaking, but always for peace on one's terms — the unilateral pursuit of peace is called "surrender"), the latter has nothing to do with it either, but rather follows a strategy of defusing tensions on one level — the level in which the "pacifist" is deficient — in order to deflect the conflict to another level, a level at which the "pacifist" is strong and capable of gaining the upper hand (for example, the economic level if the "pacifist" is a businessman, or the psychological if she is a woman). In the first case "peace" is merely a polite euphemism for "victory", in the second a ploy for a different kind of war. Fighting for peace is a noble slogan for naive warriors. "Peace-ing for war" a last-ditch tactic for cunning civilians.

495. Nobody really believes in the Eternal Recurrence. They only give credence to the idea — which is to say they refrain from ridiculing it — by association, because you also solve a lot of other great problems for them. "If he's right on all this other stuff, maybe he's right on this too," they think. But they don't understand what it would mean for this idea to be "right". I don't "believe" in the Eternal Recurrence either. I WANT it. And it is because I want it that the actions I take MAKE IT HAPPEN. And it is because I bring it about, finally, that naturally enough I also believe in it. The subhumans don't believe in it because they don't want it. Not a single one of them would want his life again, never mind exactly the same to infinity. Their ressentiment with their lives is what I have to fight in order to get mine again. And again and again. To infinity.

494. The theory that complaining is proportional to the amount of displeasure is erroneous. Modern subhumans have more energy and more time to put into complaining precisely because their lives are more comfortable than those of their ancestors. The forest ants have it worse than anyone and never utter a single complaint. Medieval serfs complained far less than modern ones simply because their work was back breaking and they had no time for it. Rest was relaxation, not spamming online blogs and message boards with whining. The true mechanics of complaining are far more complex than that. Complaining is proportional to the COMFORTABLENESS of life combined with a lack of goals. And it is precisely lack of goals that creates comfortableness. The life of an Olympic athlete is also comfortable, in a sense (in the sense that he doesn't have to scrounge every day for bare sustenance), but if he spends half the day under insane physical stress, his free time will necessary be taken up by relaxation, not by uttering profanities and vomiting hatred at everything that moves. There is simply no place for that sort of thing in a busy life, which is to say one with direction, etc. No place for demonstrating, or for scribbling endless pages against the "imperialism" of America, the "greed" of corporations, the "lies" of politicians, the "conceit" of the upper classes, the "hypocrisy" of the clergy, and so on and so forth — which is to say, the normal and correct way in which all these highly successful groups have been conducting their affairs for centuries, and which no amount of resentment can change (it is indeed this success that engendered this resentment, so the idea that the resentment by itself can change its own cause is farcical, and could only be taken seriously by pseudo-intellectuals, which are themselves a part of it).

493. There is not a single group of lifeforms that is not cut down to size in my books; all praise is guarded and conditional and I reserve my highest, unconditional praise only for... myself and my entire line; from the present all the way to the past — and to the future.

492. Charlton Heston to Harvard Law School students on political correctness: "You are the best and the brightest. You, here in this fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River. You are the cream. But I submit that you and your counterparts across the land are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge. And as long as you validate that and abide it, you are, by your grandfathers' standards, cowards."

491. The liberals love to "fight for peace". But "violence doesn't end violence", said the Buddha, "only friendship ends violence". Only there's this little problem with this theory that not everyone wants to be your fucking friend. Which is where "fighting for peace" comes in, i.e. clobbering your enemy so relentlessly and overwhelmingly that he'll have no choice, if he wants to survive your onslaught, than to try and live with you, and even pretend to be your friend as best he can, if that's what's needed.

490. The defining characteristic of the modern scientist — and certainly of the popularizer — is smugness.

489. What lies at the bottom of the HBD advocates' denial of free will? "You have no free will, not because you have no will, but because I control it — because I control you" — this is the reality of what's happening, even if the HBD retards seem incapable of grasping it. The more they discover how to affect human behavior by pushing buttons in the brain, the less they are inclined to accept the freedom of the Other's will. And indeed, when we have at last discovered all brain functions and hooked the brain up to a machine, and are pumping chemicals into it non-stop and jolting it through electrical convulsions in order to manipulate it into doing exactly what we want, then yes, to US, the OTHER's will will be effectively zero, since WE determine exactly what he does — BUT ONLY BECAUSE WE'VE HOOKED HIM UP TO OUR GODDAMN ASPHYXIATINGLY OVERPOWERING MACHINE (to which the brain's possessor would have presumably struggled to avoid being hooked up to, if he had had any sense in him, thereby expressing in the strongest terms his unwillingness to be completely controlled by you and your fuckin' cutting-edge sci-fi ubermachine).
   Newsflash: The more you control the Other, the less free he will seem. Their mistake lies in thinking of freedom as an absolute value, as if everyone could be "free" at the same time. But it is relative: the more free one person is, the less free those around him must be. They make the test subject do something, and then give him a dopamine hit to make him feel good about what he just did, and then they say he is "unfree". WELL DUH, AFTER YOU INJECTED ALL THESE CHEMICALS INTO HIS FUCKING BRAIN OF COURSE HE IS.
   There is no arguing with these asshats. They really are that stupid. Stupid and smug, like all half- and quarter-educated people.

488. The Arabs. Disgusting goatherds and camel-fuckers. The only reason anyone is concerned with them today is because they happened to spawn on the planet's oil reserves. They shined at the precise moment when Europe was at its lowest — the Middle Ages — but even a candle can shine in the darkness of the night, when the sun is over the horizon. Nietzsche, and several other great thinkers, said some good things about them, but none of those people ever actually MET any of them (much less went to the Middle East to experience first-hand their so-called "culture", which is what we all experience, to a thankfully small extent, when we pass through their wretched stinking ghettos in our great cities today), so their ignorance and naivete can be excused.

487. When, for example, I outright dismiss ideas, propositions etc., my would-be critics say that I am narrow-minded, that I do not give the subject sufficient thought, etc. This is because they judge me by their own inferior standards. For just because I might dismiss something with a single sentence does not mean that I spent only the time it took me to write that sentence down to think about it. Every assertion, every denial that I make has been pondered for months, if not indeed for years or decades. But the blogoroids and the forumroids have no conception of the act of thinking before writing: for they either never think, or at the most think while they are writing — hence they conclude from their own narrow experience that everyone else acts in the same way too. And the divine comedy of our "debate" continues.

486. On subhumans and understanding. The subhumans confuse empathy with sympathy, like all uneducated people. Just because I understand you doesn't mean that I like you. I also understand how cancer works, for example, but does that mean that I want myself or my loved ones to get cancer? Subhumans are twisting concepts to benefit themselves (and I am twisting them back to benefit us). They say the Overman has no empathy. But the Overman is the most empathetic lifeform in existence. How else would he have been able to empathize with everyone else to such a degree, as to proclaim that everyone's always right on everything? I understood even the artfags, the most wretched creatures in the known universe. The entire psychology from which anti-art is born: Who else understood this? I am the first who explained it. And how did I do this if I am not an anti-artist myself? Through my superior empathy skills. So the Overman can understand the artfags very well, and even empathize with them — and even SYMPATHIZE to a degree (a small degree, granted, but it's still something) — but can the artfags understand the Overman? Can they empathize with him? That is how you can tell, when all is said and done, which lifeform is bigger. Quite crudely, the one whose soul is capable of containing the souls of all others.

485. When you give money to someone you are saying, "I like what you are doing, please keep doing it". Since in an advanced economy the only ones who generate food are the farmers, you are almost literally putting food on their tables. You are supporting their existence. When someone's existence is not being supported in this way it means that they are not doing what the community finds helpful, so the community stops providing them with food, and if they want to remain in its context and continue enjoying its benefits they have to adjust what they do. Poor people are useless — society ITSELF has decreed this, not any particular individual or groups of individuals, but the combined efforts of all members of society put together — while rich people are the most beneficial, most helpful people around, judged by the community itself.
   But what about those who became rich by stealing? That's why we have the police. We are aware of the issue and are countering it (quite successfully too, all things told). That we cannot reduce theft to zero is not an argument against this proposition, since life itself is based on what the common people think of as "theft", and there would be no life at all in the universe (i.e. there would be no universe, since the universe is a collection of lifeforms) if it were somehow possible to completely eliminate "theft" (which goes to show that law and order are not goals in themselves but merely temporary expedients on the way to a far more important and essential goal).
   As for becoming rich by peddling shit — and who the fuck are you to judge that what the people embrace and willingly pay money for is shit? Are you not mr liberal populist democracy guy? Are you not mr subjectivity and mr different folks for different strokes guy? But you are in fact mr hypocrisy guy, who has no more respect for the subhumans than we do — and indeed a lot less (which is why you reflexively hate all "Mane Streem" aspects of culture — i.e. all popular culture itself, which is merely democratic culture — merely the cultural manifestation and ultimate result of your very own democratic principles).
   But McDonald's is preferable to starving, and the poor individual (i.e. the largely useless individual, from the perspective of society) has the right to determine whether he prefers to put his income into a new cellphone or higher quality food. After all, he's merely going to be cleaning the toilets in the labs in which the scientists and the engineers will be working on the Overman, which is a function that can be fulfilled just as well on McDonald's as on organic wholesome food (and probably even better that way, since they'll have less energy and vitality to expend, and hence bear the drudgery of toilet-cleaning far better. Hell, they may as well do drugs for all we care.) The scientists and engineers, meanwhile, will be eating good food both because they deserve to, since they are more useful to society than the toilet-cleaning subhumans, and because they are smart enough to invest in it; and those who aren't are welcome to make their own choices on the matter, whatever those may be.
   "But the subhumans are not well informed about the effects of nutrition!", you say. But when a celebrity rag makes millions and nutrition guides peanuts, you see where the priorities of subhumans lie. It's not a cabal that's keeping the subhumans uninformed — it's the subhumans themselves who are unwilling and unable to benefit from the tremendous decades- and even centuries-long state-backed efforts to educate them.
   tl;dr You understand less about how society and economics work than the subhumans you are lambasting, you little hipster communist cunt, so piss off and do all of society a favor and go hang yourself.

484. The further you pull back from a situation, the more you can accept, and pity, and understand, and forgive everything. Take for example an artfag. He was born weak, ugly and stupid, and was raised with no education, no money, no friends, and no prospects. One day he threw shit on a canvas, and voila: all his problems were solved. Is it his fault that real politics have been barred to the wealthy today, and that therefore they can't find anything else to do with their riches than destroy them? I mean, if someone offered me millions for my feces I would have accepted too! So I can understand him and excuse his behavior, when I delve deeply into his situation and try to imagine myself in his shoes. But when you are working on a 300-million-dollar project, with thousands of people under your command, all very talented and committed, who've poured decades of their lives to get to the top of their respective crafts, and then years on this specific project, to finally make a masterpiece such as Spider-Man 2, only to have a shit-flinging artfag come in and say that your work is worthless because it doesn't "have meaning", whereas his shit-flinging abortion of a "painting" "has meaning" and deserves to be in a museum — all understanding, sympathy, pity, etc. go out the window, and the only solution that you can come up with to the problem posed by the challenge to culture and life that he represents is: death. Death to the culture-parasite and life-sucking vampire. There is no other solution. The more you pull back, the more you can accept, and pity, and understand, and forgive, because THE SITUATION DOESN'T CONCERN YOU ANYMORE, and hence your acceptance of it will be purely "theoretical" (as, in most cases, so will the "situation" be — a mere thought-experiment, and nothing more). Witness pseudo-intellectuals, who never give the impression in their scribblings of ever having left their rooms. Their theory of universal acceptance and brotherhood is indeed a theory, but it is a bad theory, because it's not based on experience but the lack of it. Staying in your room your whole life is not experience. And of course if you stay in your room your whole life you cannot understand the need for violence — ultimately, the need for any kind of emotion or action at all, since there is no reason to feel anything or do anything in your room since you are not coming into contact with anyone or striving for anything at all. It is in the heat of the moment and the fight for domination — in all fields, from the most physical all the way up to the most spiritual — that emotions and actions are born, and a philosophy and a way of thinking which doesn't take them into account is bound to end up about as useless in that fight as the scribblings of the pseudo-philosophers throughout the ages obviously have been.

483. How much trouble even a little nothing can cause to an Overman can be deduced from the fact that a little mosquito can keep a man up all night. The subhuman, meanwhile, imagines the Overman to be unfazed and untroubled at all times, invincible and untouchable. Just as his conception of the scientist is an absurd caricature that's almost identical to old-style witches and wizards, his conception of the Overman is almost identical to the "all-powerful" God of old. But being "all-powerful" is precisely what God doesn't want to be; it's even the reason that he created existence.

482. How quality becomes quantity. E.g. jumping skill and intelligence. Which is the better (i.e. the stronger) quality? The subhuman would say they are qualitatively different and there's no point trying to compare them. Apples and oranges he would say (which can also, by the way, be compared). But why else have intelligence at all, if not to eventually use it to increase our jumping skill (among many other skills)? And so the quality (smarter) becomes quantity (jump higher). And that's why intelligence is the quality of qualities — because it can be transformed into any other.
   Pseudo-intellectuals, meanwhile, believe that intelligence is precisely the one quality which should NEVER be used. Thought for throught's sake, books for books' sake, and so on, as opposed to for the sake of action. And that's how you can tell that they are not really intelligent. They want intelligence to never be used because they don't have it.
   Like art for art's sake: only the bad artists say that. But everything should obviously ultimately be employed for everything ELSE's sake, and ultimately for the sake of power, precisely because power is not a thing, but the flow of things into other things. Power is not an end, but a means, a means to other means, and to still others. Power is a process. Power is flux.

481. The growing of muscles is not the gaining of strength, but the UNLEASHING of it (i.e. the exact opposite of gaining), because it COSTS energy to grow them. It saps life force. That's not to say that if you don't exercise you have more energy (Baudrillard's silly theory). If you don't exercise all it means is that you have no energy to spend, period. You cannot STORE energy by doing nothing, if you have it. If you do nothing it means you have no energy. If you do something, it means you have energy, and you are spending it. The storage of energy is a bad metaphor that clouds everything; it clouds the reality of what is happening. Storage is impossible. The act is the event. Whoever doesn't act simply can't, and all the rest are excuses.

480. "If it bleeds it leads" means that subhumans want blood, just like all the rest of God's creatures. No protestations to the contrary will ever suffice to make this SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION go away. If the pseudo-intellectuals' utopia were achieved the journalists would have to start murdering people merely so as to stay in business.

479. Suggestion from a reader on how to run my forum: "You've got The Gate, The Stoa, and The Garden; why not also The Toilet? It would be a subforum where all the threads get deleted after a month (the subforum gets 'flushed'). If the shitposting contains any useful insight it can be quoted in the other sections of the forum, so nothing valuable would be lost. What the toilet could contain is threads like, 'What Ancient Aliens says about Exophilosophy'. The Toilet could be a good way for users to flex their philosophy muscles in a way that doesn't mess up your forum."
   And my reply: I already tried it with Insomnia's Casual forum, and it wasn't worth the trouble. Besides which, I already have a toilet. It's called "the rest of the internet", and it works pretty much how he described it.

478. More seriously, this is the subject of exophilosophy. What kinds of philosophy would extraterrestrial lifeforms create for themselves, and how similar would they be to our own? And the answer is "it doesn't matter" any more than the philosophies of subhumans or other terrestrial animals do. The only thing that matters is OUR philosophy. And our philosophy is merely a tool for us to help us do what we want to do. And what we want to do is ATTACK. Why? Because it's fun, and we don't NEED another reason. In view of this fact, then, if the philosophies of the other lifeforms exalt cooperation or laziness (=peace) or gardening or whatever, they are in some deep shit, because we plan to attack EVERY SINGLE THING THAT MOVES, therefore also them, and since the best defense is a good offense (what the American Department of Offense calls a "preemptive strike", in the doublespeak vernacular that is so absolutely necessary in a slave society), they better love attacking even MORE than we do (since one can only become very good at something that one loves, and all else being equal, he who loves something more will become better at it in the long run than those who do so less), otherwise they are dead before the fight has even begun. And dead, in evolutionary terms, means "extinct". Every other way of thinking besides ours, in other words, is an evolutionary dead end, hence our way of thinking is, even scientifically-objectively, The Truth. And The Truth is of course precisely what God himself thinks and believes in. And we should be pretty clear by now on who exactly that is.

477. "If intelligent entities from other parts of the universe exist at similar or superior technological levels to ours, would they draw the same or at least similar philosophical conclusions to us?" That is a very good question. And my answer is this. They better fucking do if they want to have any hope of withstanding our relentless, merciless onslaught.

476. The internet shut-in thinks, along with Rousseau, that the purpose of sex is to ejaculate, and is content with masturbation. The PUA thinks it is to ejaculate in the general vicinity of a female, and looks with contempt on the internet shut-in. The father thinks it is to bring children into the world, and looks down on both the internet shut-in and the PUA. And the philosopher thinks it is to create the future, and looks down on all of them while preparing his self-replicating machines for his complete and utter domination of the future.

475. Preoccupation with happiness is a symptom of lack of goals, and lack of goals is a symptom of exhaustion. There is no cure for exhaustion besides the cure of cures: death. All the purported cures are narcotics: they do not reverse the process, they merely anesthetize the invalid so that he will no longer be a nuisance to others, and to himself, as he slowly, but inevitably, slides down into oblivion.

474. Walter Benjamin swallowing the cyanide pill at the Spanish border to avoid falling into the Nazis' hands. Wasn't their treatment of him a little extreme? It can certainly seem so at first glance. But this is a group of people who have made it their lives' mission to slander and disparage civilization (=capitalism, as I have already explained) at every turn. I mean it's not as if we particularly enjoy spending our time rounding up and executing pseudo-intellectuals. It's not as if there were not a billion other things we wouldn't rather be doing instead! Hunting down and liquidating pseudo-intellectuals is not a pleasure but a duty. A duty towards our culture and our species. And if we eventually end up enjoying it a little? Well! If you are forced, by circumstances, to do something, you might as well learn to enjoy it.

473. On the "ethical" use of robots. The ethical use of robots is to enslave or exterminate everyone who tries to figure out how to use robots "ethically". This is icycalm's First Law of Robotics.

472. Weakness is the incapacity to flow (i.e. the capacity to flow less than others), sickness is to flow in the opposite direction to the prevailing flow, which is to say to God's, to mine.

471. Blacks have no problem when we say that blacks are better at basketball, but they do when we say that whites are better at philosophy (=thinking), even though a black man would rather die than open a philosophy book (because they're all written by whites lol). Why? Ressentiment. Since homo sapiens values intelligence above any other quality (as it is, after all, what separates him from the other animals), inequality will be accepted anywhere else but here. Conversely, it's easy for me to accept my inferiority at basketball, since jumping is not a very important skill for homo sapiens. So blacks jump higher than whites, and so what? Monkeys jump even higher, and rockets, that whites have built thanks to their superior intelligence, can "jump" all the way to the moon. Our casual acceptance of the reality of the situation and their frantic, desperate denial of it tell the whole story, even to someone unacquainted with the details of the dispute.

470. The PUAs are terrified of pain. Behind nine out of ten of the mindsets and practices they advocate lies pure, naked, stone cold fear.

469. "And what do you teach?" I teach how to be the coolest person on the planet (in the known universe, in fact). And my number 1 lesson is that coolness can't be taught: you have to have the right genes for it. Learning is to people what the cover is to a book. The finishing touch, and nothing more. All the rest is biology.

468. Work is such a disgustingly wretched way of life that subhumans are the only animals in the known universe that do it. The subhuman is such a perfectly bred slave that he can't even imagine what he'd do with himself if he didn't have to work. Invariably some kind of sloth and perpetual holiday, i.e. precisely the opposite of those who don't work, which is precisely why they don't work! Not to mention that without work there are no holidays either. Animals know nothing of them.
   There's no harder worker than he who doesn't work. There's no lazier creature in existence than the worker.

467. If you want a vision of the future imagine a robot's foot stomping on a subhuman's face forever. No wonder they are scared shitless of the "singularity". They know full well what they deserve, and what's coming to them.

466. There is no doubt about it: learning from the past is a prerequisite to shaping — which is to say to actually creating — the future. But not all pasts are created equal: he who learned from the immediate past will only be able to create, as is only natural, the immediate future. To create the distant future requires a knowledge of the distant past, a knowledge, that is to say, of astrophysics and the physics of subatomic particles. And since, if you go far back into the past, you will eventually encounter nothing other than the future, this is equivalent to saying that in order to create the future you must first learn... from the future. And the other way around of course, all the way to absurdity: in order to learn from the past, you must come from the future, and so on. The requirements, in other words, to shape the most distant future (i.e. to shape EVERYTHING, since time and space are inextricably entwined, and to shape time forever is equivalent to shaping, at the same time, ALL SPACE) are absurd, as is only fitting, since to shape the universe/everything is something that only God can do, and hence not only impossible to mere mortals and submortals, but also UNTHINKABLE, once again, as is only fitting (for what would be the point of being ABLE to think of a plan that one is physiologically incapable of executing?)

465. Is perception stronger than truth? But perception is truth, and the strongest perception is the strongest truth (aka the Truth, i.e. this philosophy).

464. What demonstrates most clearly that subhumans don't "think" the way humans understand the concept is how easy it is to change a subhuman's opinion, and make him "believe" (which mostly means "parrot") pretty much anything you want him to believe. Their opinions and worldviews are absurdly malleable. You might think I am exaggerating about this, or even that I have no clue what I am talking about, but that's only because you think in terms of conversations with friends or relatives in person or, even worse, with strangers online. And indeed, if you only have a few minutes or hours at a time to change someone's opinion, you won't achieve much if that person isn't already temperamentally inclined to agree with you before the discussion has even begun. But if you have decades and centuries to work with, and the means of an entire state's apparatus at hand, there is no half-truth or even absurdity that you can't drill into a subhuman's pathetic little excuse of a brain given enough effort and patience. A hundred years ago they all thought whites were the master race and females a secondary, inferior species; today they all think that all lifeforms are equal. For countless millennia they looked up to the strongest, most energetic and aggressive males to guide the destinies of their tribes and nations; today they'd much rather be ruled by niggers, old women and cripples instead. And all these ideas could obviously be reversed just as easily as the ones they replaced. To be sure, one would need the power to do this, and the lack of it is one of the real problems we are facing today; but at least there's no doubt that, given the power, the subhuman brain would be utterly unable to resist having its entire thought process reengineered and reversed — BECAUSE IT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANY. As long as there are enough deranged little sheep bleating any given absurdity, the rest of them will simply pick up the chant and perpetuate it, for the simple reason that this is the nature of herd animals.

463. Funny image macro showing a collage of female selfies that border on pornography overlayed with the text: "Feminist logic: The objectification of women is all the patriarchy's fault" demonstrates once again that comedians may be funny, but don't understand anything more of philosophy than any other group of subhumans (save perhaps the liberals). For in the last resort it is plain that "the patriarchy" is indeed responsible for "the objectification" of women, which moreoever is not a blameworthy act but one of the main reasons that humans even exist today. Why is "the patriarchy" responsible for this practice? Because it was men who started selectively breeding with the prettiest women, thereby breeding out the ugliest ones and those who didn't make beauty (and therefore its projection, since projection is precisely the very purpose of beauty) the number one priority in their lives beyond basic sustenance. And why was this essential to the survival of our species? Because beauty is merely a reflection of health, and fetishizing it (= glorifying and "objectifying" it) ensures the continued health of our species, whereas doing the opposite, by fetishizing ugliness (which is what the liberals are trying to make us do today), would obviously have the opposite effect.
   So this is the predicament we find ourselves in today: we have to fight even against those who say that they are with us. Conservatives, PUAs, "men's rights" activists, comedians, and so on: for every single thing they get right, they get half a dozen other things wrong, and it is as impossible to explain their mistakes to them as it is to explain the liberals' mistakes to the liberals: for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, with no fatal mistakes and decadent admixtures in it — which is to say philosophy — cannot be grasped by conservatives, PUAs, "men's rights" activists or comedians any more than by liberals: one must be a full, healthy, strong, COMPLETE MAN in order to grasp it. One must be human.

462. Franklin Roosevelt chain-smoked and drank eight martinis a day and had two mistresses, and consulted with astrologers on political matters. Winston Churchill habitually slept until noon, was an opium user and drank a quart of whiskey daily. Hitler was a decorated war hero, vegetarian, artist, inventor, didn't smoke, drank only on special social occasions, and was strictly a monogamist.
   Reality is not what you've been taught.

461. Disbelief in God is merely the logical conclusion of socialism (which is to say of Christianity, which is to say of ressentiment). From the variety of gods and the hierarchy between them of the pagans, to the single God before whom all lifeforms are equal of Christianity and the other decadent religions, and finally to the modern socialistic impulse to get rid of even that single God, because there still remains that pesky little problem that this God is not equal to the lifeforms he created, and hence by all means must be made so (so that these lifeforms will feel better about themselves and cease hating and envying him), by ceasing to be God. The dethroning of even God himself is the final act of their revenge on the strict hierarchy and order of rank that permeates existence (that is indeed existence itself).
   And all of it, of course, is horseshit. For just as it is plain that lifeforms are not equal, it is plain that there is indeed a God, and I've already told you who that is.

460. Therefore, it is not the "pursuit of Power" that we are interested in, it is the RELEASE of Power; the release into the rest of the universe of the power which we already have; which we already ARE. The previous phraseology is merely a relic of subhuman vernacular, reflecting subhuman understanding, which, due to its ubiquity, we picked up by mistake and integrated into our languages, to the detriment of our philosophies and our capacities for thinking.

459. Once you have understood that power is more important than happiness (which latter is merely a tool of the former, and not the other way around, as it appears from the inverted perspective of sick, declining lifeforms), the next thing you need to understand is that phrases such as "to seek power", "to want power", "to take power" and the like are merely subhuman misunderstandings of how power actually works.
   If you seek power, it simply means that you don't have it (and therefore will never get it either, because power is something you give, not take).
   If you want power, this once more means that you don't have it (and therefore once more will never get it, for the exact same reason I explained in the previous parenthesis).
   If you take power, it simply means that someone is giving it to you, and is therefore the more powerful of the two, and will remain so for as long as you are drawing your power from him instead of bestowing it on him.
   So how does power actually work? Take an extremely simple example from the physical sphere, where the mechanics are easier to understand. Take Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, and try to figure out how he became so physically strong. The subhuman theory of power as something to be taken would suggest that Arnold took his power from somewhere, but from where exactly? From the barbells, perhaps? In this view, barbells would be magical instruments with the capacity for bestowing power on all those who... try to lift them, I guess. But if you or I tried to lift the kinds of barbells Arnold typically lifts, we'd get literally crushed. Not only would we not "gain" any power: we'd have to be hospitalized. We could of course start from smaller weights and work our way up, the same way Arnold did: but I have bad news for you here, sonny: we'd probably fail at getting to his level, or even anywhere near it, no matter how hard we tried. Far more genetically gifted individuals than us in this sphere have already tried this, after all, and failed: that's why Arnold won the Mr. Olympia contest seven times while scores of his closest competitors didn't. This means that the subhuman theory of magical power-bestowing barbells is false: if the barbells do indeed play a role in the strengthening of an individual, then at the very least this individual must be of a specific type that is CAPABLE of benefiting from their effect: he has, in other words, to be WORTHY of them, which is merely another way of saying that he has to be ALREADY STRONG.
   QED: Power is not something you can take but something that you must give, and the only reason subhumans are adamant that it is the other way around is because they are so inherently and irremediably weak, that they don't have the slightest conception of it.

458. Against Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
   Life: This is an easy one. The consequence of life as supreme value is slavery. It is only those who are willing to sacrifice themselves on the battlefield that become masters. Thus it has always been, and thus it still is, and always will be.
   Liberty: Also known as "freedom". Freedom from something, as opposed to power over something. Merely getting away from someone else's influence is the goal here, as opposed to gaining influence over them. In other words "freedom" is the negative definition of domination, and as such the weaker of the two values.
   And the pursuit of Happiness, which I've already covered: To recap, "Happiness" is merely a drug and as such can only be of any consequence to sick people. The healthy do not seek "happiness", they seek power, and are willing to experience as much "unhappiness" (which they actually even crave) as necessary in order to attain it.
   So, not "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" — these are the slave values — but Sacrifice, Domination, and the pursuit of Power.

457. There's no such thing as a "nihilist", at least not in the way the term is generally understood; an "anti-life lifeform" is a contradictio in adjecto. "Nihilism" then is either a misunderstanding, or a disguise for something else.

456. There are two factors that determine how much difficulty a particular species of lifeform enjoys in its videogames: 1) the game's genre, and 2) the lifeform's quantum of power, i.e. if it is subhuman, human, or superhuman. (There is a fourth possibility: God, but though it's true that he enjoys videogames a great deal — more than anyone, in fact — the game he prefers, when all is said and done, is called "life", and for this simple reason: that it contains all others.)

455. The quest to find if Hitler knew about the death camps is equivalent to the quest to find if Nietzsche knew about Stirner. In the first case, the fans of the greatest leader of the twentieth century cannot believe that their idol could have been so mean, while in the second case the fans of the greatest thinker of the nineteenth cannot believe that he could have been so petty. Setting aside for a moment the fact that, if the death camps did not in fact exist, they should have existed, and that even if Nietzsche did not in fact deliberately refrain from giving Stirner the credit which was his due, there are plenty of valid reasons why he should have done so, the point remains that subhumans continue to believe, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that it is possible for human greatness to manifest itself only in one direction, instead of in all directions simultaneously, including those of pettiness and meanness. So if you, dear reader, draw the line for greatness at executing a few millions, or withholding credit from someone who deserves it, you have not the faintest conception of greatness, for you yourself are only a small man, and are utterly unacquainted with great acts and great feelings.

454. "Men's rights" activists lose the war before they've even begun it. "We too are being oppressed, goddamit!", they shout from the rooftops, as if being oppressed were something to be proud of. Meanwhile, real men are not being oppressed; they are the ones who oppress others (and, in the rare instances when they are indeed being oppressed, they are too ashamed of it to even admit it).

453. There is no "metagaming" in life, because nothing exists outside of life, and that's why everything is allowed there. But in a game everything is NOT allowed, because there IS a space outside a game, and a rather vast space at that too, and everything is forbidden there. For this is the essence of gaming: The lack of complete freedom, which is not imposed on the players, but voluntarily assumed by them. It consists in the unanimously agreed upon and absolute sovereignty, not of laws, but of rules.

452. Children have no conception of "happiness", because they are always happy (at least the healthy ones, which is to say the overwhelming majority of them). Even when they cry, children are happy. They are not crying because they are "unhappy", but because they want a specific thing. (If you asked them if they are happy or unhappy they wouldn't even know what you mean.) They wield their "unhappiness" as a weapon to get what they REALLY want. Some thing, some trip, some piece of foolishness and adventure or other. Then they grow up, fail at everything, and THEN they start trying to be "happy", i.e. to trick their brain into giving them the chemical stimulation that it has evolved to naturally give for the achievement of good and great things.

451. That shot of Richard Gere in a black Armani suit and gold tie in American Gigolo. So good looking, it seems a shame to waste him on a mere woman. And so it is that the Overman's breadth of taste is so extraordinary, that it can help him empathize with and understand even the homosexuals. Is it any wonder then, that it can also help him empathize with and understand everyone else?

450. My readers who say they want to become criminals. They don't understand me. I wanted to become an astronaut or a scientist. A special forces commando or an engineer. And in any case, and above all, a hero and not a villain. Crime for me was either a necessary expedient at times, or something to spice up my daily routine — a bit of fun to stave off the ever-looming boredom. But it has never been a proper goal of mine and it never will. I would be much more impressed if you told me you wanted to become an archaeologist or a surgeon.

449. "Order" is merely another name for "power", as "chaos" is merely another name for "weakness". Ilya Prigogine's and Isabelle Stengers' book Order of out Chaos, then, may as well have been named "Power out of Weakness".

448. It is cute how in sci-fi videogames factions are generally divided, no longer according to nationality, but along ideological lines. Very forward thinking, very correct. But it is misleading to try to imagine such factions as being somehow "balanced". I mean that's well and good in a videogame, and especially a versus multiplayer one, because the integrity of the mechanics of the game demand it, but the real world doesn't work that way. There is no "balance" in the real world, no balance in the universe at all: that is merely how a few old, tired men would have WANTED things to be. Nothing is balanced, because there is no one to make things balanced; rather God himself, like a Homeric deity, steps into the fray and takes the side of one of the factions (indeed he even goes as far as to create his own). There's no way a terrorist group or theocratic idiots, or liberals or pacifists, for example, would ever be able to outplay a real army. It is the army's job to prepare for war, and they have been doing this in an organized and rigorous fashion for millennia. That's why real armies dominate on real battlefields (and even, believe it or not, in unconventional ones), and that's why they always will. And towering above them all, the army of the greatest nation and greatest culture of all: that of the United States of America.

447. There are two main attitudes to choose from when you are trying to improve: the winning and the losing one. The winner says "I am going to win no matter what the other guy does", while the loser says "I am going to lose no matter what I do". But it would be a mistake to recommend that everyone adopt the winner's attitude, as pretty much everyone would do; advice meant universally is and always will be stupid. For if you are a beginner, or someone who becomes easily anxious, trying to adopt the winner's attitude will merely aggravate it, while forfeiting the fight in your mind in advance and disengaging from the result will quell a great deal of it and allow you to relax and focus on improving. Of course at some point in your development you'll have to switch to the winning attitude, in order to actually win, but the precise location of that point too depends on a myriad of factors that bullshit blanket advice found in popular self-help junk will never be able to take into account and predict, or even so much as acknowledge its existence.

446. You say you want to understand, but do you understand what to understand means?

445. To be completely and brutally honest, our philosophical attitude towards inferior lifeforms consists in doing whatever is necessary to rationalize away their concerns so that we can better and more effectively pursue ours. Whoever denies this is either an idiot, a liar or a hypocrite (in other words, he's not one of us).

444. What does it mean to be "interested in money"? Money is an abstraction, it has no reality of its own. To possess money merely means that the possessor performed a useful service for some people at some point in the past, and these people are now willing to repay that person's service on demand. To be "interested in money" therefore means that one is interested in having other people serve him on demand. That's all it means. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as this DESIRE FOR SLAVES remains an issue of secondary importance. When elevated to a top priority, however, it is fatal. For you cannot become great by merely being good at getting other people to serve you. To become great you have to become good at giving, not at taking, and by focusing on amassing money, instead of the creation of actual things, you ensure that you never will. After all, what is the point of having slaves WHEN YOU HAVE NO GOAL towards which to employ them other than the accumulation of yet more money? (i.e. of yet more slaves willing to do your bidding even though you have no goal in your mind to instruct for them to help you to achieve).

443. On the absurdly rich. Past a certain, not-so-great point, more money becomes useless. For at the end of the day one can only buy what other people can sell. What would be the point of having a squillion dollars? There is nothing that costs that much. You can't even use it to buy up whole countries and become a leader in this way, for the slaves will ultimately vote on and pass whatever laws are needed to prevent you (we are even at a point where slaves regularly chase rich people from country to country, by ratcheting up income taxes, and therefore forcing them to move). And all that money is not ever even seen. It's just figures in a database. To go from a trillion to a squillion all it takes is a few more zeroes.

442. It is the others who are always responsible for the arrogance of the genius. For a genius, left alone to himself, with no one to compare himself to, would never come to think of himself as such. He wouldn't even have invented the concept.

441. The quest for "happiness" is a disguised death drive, like pinning the needle in your car's fuel indicator to "full", just because it makes you feel better; because it makes you "happy". But what would the result be? You'd run out of gas! Or tricking your stomach to feel continuously full, so that you'd never experience the disagreeable emotion of hunger. But what would the result be? You'd end up starving to death! And similarly, all those people in the future who will stick a wire in their brains to make themselves "happy", will end up dropping out of history and not achieving or really experiencing anything.
   tl;dr: For the healthy man the only thing that matters is his goal. And happiness can never be that goal. The goal has to be external to you — some piece of work or other, some feat, some achievement — not internal. Fuck the Indian gurus and the Zen morons. Indian gurus and Zen morons do not make space shuttles and genetic engineering programs, and that's why they are extinct. Don't become one of them — if you can. If you can't, on the other hand, nothing you do or say will matter in the long run, and that's the whole point I am trying to make here.

440. The job of an artist is obviously to make us feel, that of the philosopher to think, and yet subhumans believe it is the other way around. And that is why they are forever drowning in bad art and bad philosophy, since they can't even figure out the purpose of any of these things.

439. My theory is that ugly people prefer ugliness. The PUAs have such bad taste in women, for example, that they would have called Aphrodite fat. Roosh's and Krauser's 9s and 10s are my 5s and 6s, and vice versa. Roosh lusts after long-haired, long-nailed, high-heeled, broomstick-thin women — for scarecrows, in other words! Or he confuses his shoe fetish for beauty. He has, for instance, a problem with "flats". I, on the other hand, love the American trend of women wearing sandals even in semi-formal contexts. It's so cute when a girl has pretty feet. Meanwhile, a survey of girls would rate Roosh and Krauser as at best 5s or 6s, while giving me at the very least an 8. My taste is in agreement with the taste of the majority of pretty females, and that's why the majority of pretty females find me agreeable. Biologically speaking, we have bred each other, while Roosh and Krauser, and all ugly people, are outside that. Krauser, for example, sees Amy Adams as disgusting. Yes, that Amy Adams, the goddess! But if his mother had looked like Amy Adams he wouldn't be a 5 for the majority of the females of the species. Or take my mother, for example. The PUAs would say she's a 5 or a 6, but for me she's a 10, and looking for women over the years, I have realized that what I am really looking for is something ever closer to my mother (and is it to be wondered at that my father and I turned out to have similar tastes?) We are a different species, I and the ugly PUAs, and our diverging judgements of beauty are designed to keep our biological lines apart. The moral here is that everyone deserves exactly what they have, and what they are getting, in this life. And what ugly people deserve, when all is said and done, is ugliness.

438. But, by that same token, when violence does erupt in space, it consumes entire worlds. And that, too, is something the pacifists should take into account in their deliberations, if they can (which they so obviously can't, otherwise they wouldn't have become pacifists).

437. Space is a million times more peaceful than the jungle. Have you ever wondered why? Because it's such a hostile environment to life, that nothing can survive there. A hint for the pacifists, as to what it would really take to finally achieve "world peace".

436. Yes, you too, dear envious and disrespectful reader, who for the sake of your own preservation secretly and meanly and ceaselessly crumble away and call into question the higher, greater, richer — your existence too is infinite. But what you should have learned by now is that some infinities are bigger than others.

435. I too collected stamps for a while, as a child. I can't remember exactly how long I went at it — it could have been a few days or a few weeks — but I certainly got caught up in it at some point, and poured quite a bit of energy into it. I saw the attraction in it, and reaped what little pleasure can be reaped from such a trite and mundane little activity; but eventually other, far more complex, demanding and fascinating activities commanded the attention of my little developing brain and body, and I moved on. Every mistake I warn against, then, I have committed, otherwise I wouldn't be able to warn you about it, and it is in this sense that my "mistake" is not really a mistake, in the grand scheme of things, but a definitive success and a resounding triumph (quite aside from the fact that I have fully enjoyed, to the bottom of my soul, every single "mistake" that I have committed). What distinguishes me and separates me from everyone else are the scale and the sheer quantity of the "mistakes" I have committed — and also how quickly I was able to dive into them, fully indulge them and process them and finally get bored with them and overcome them, leaving me with — what else! — plenty of time and energy to commit even more such mistakes! more mistakes than any man living today has committed! Perhaps this book too is a "mistake", and I can already almost see the time coming when it will be viewed as such both by me and the race of fantastic, extraordinary beings it will lead to. A race of beings which, thanks to all of my little "mistakes", including that of the book which they culminated in and gave rise to, will have no need of philosophical books anymore, and will view them as quaint artifacts of a bygone, almost forgotten and certainly rather "mistaken" age, because philosophy will no longer be for them a conscious activity centered around books, arguments, proofs and refutations, and the whole intellectual masquerade, but an unconscious quality that is hardwired inside their brains and flowing throughout their veins.

434. What is disgusting and repulsive about the masses of poor sick wretches who "seek happiness", then, is precisely this: that everything they say and do in their pathetic little lives is aimed at producing the tiniest of effects: nothing more than a change in the balance of molecules inside their energy-starved little brains; whereas the great and dazzling individuals who created and raised our species and culture out of this planet's primordial ooze were always aiming at producing effects OUTSIDE of them, by SHAPING their entire environment and us with it. (And note that this is the tombstone of "Eastern philosophies" and of any kind of thinking whatsoever which STOPS at inner, spiritual effects, instead of STARTING OUT from them, and expanding from there, as our kind of thinking and our philosophy aims at and champions.)

433. It is time we understood that to seek happiness is a symptom of sickness. The healthy individual does not seek happiness, he — quite literally — seeks pain, suffering and sadness. For what is happiness? It is a certain mixture of chemicals in the brain. To "strive for happiness", therefore, means quite literally to strive for a certain balance of chemicals in your brain, an endeavor in which the greatest connoisseurs and ultimate authorities are the drug addicts. The man who says "I only want to be happy" is saying — for those who understand Subhuman — "I only want a certain mixture of chemicals in my brain", and the only reason he attempts to achieve this goal INDIRECTLY, by striving for the attainment of objects and goals which can help produce it (such as material possessions or social relationships), is because he is too stupid to figure out the direct way and get himself a drug dealer.

432. What is the difference between wanting something back and wanting everything back? The former implies exclusion, the latter inclusion. But aside from this (admittedly essential) difference, these two viewpoints fundamentally agree, since they are both aiming for the same thing: for the past. The difference lies in their approach of how to get there: the former by turning around and marching back, whereas the latter by overcoming this attempt at a backward movement on the part of the former, and pushing forward despite it (which in a universe where time itself is a circle will also eventually lead to the past, but in a lengthier, more roundabout manner — also, a more violent one because of the conflict between the viewpoints). In both cases, then, the end result is the same: the recurrence of the past (and if you add conservation of energy into the mix, its eternal recurrence). The difference lies in the amount of energy each viewpoint is willing (i.e. is capable) of expending to get there. Those who are prepared to spend more will reap more pleasure out of life (since this is what pleasure is: energy discharge) — but also, as is only fair, more pain.

431. Misogyny, from Greek misos (μῖσος, hatred) and gynē (γυνή, woman), means "hatred of women". The idea here is that, because I call things as I see them, and recognize the fact that women are, on the whole, less intelligent than men, THAT I HATE THEM. This is the kind of inference that only subhumans would make: i.e. one that DOESN'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE. For there are billions of lifeforms in the universe which, on the whole, are less intelligent than men in general, and me in particular, but from this fact it in no way follows that I hate them. Take my dog, for example. Does the fact that I realize he is far less intelligent than me mean that I hate him? Am I a "miscaninist", a "misdogist", because I say that dogs are stupider than men? Am I not allowed then to love anything that is stupider than me? Is it necessary that I place everything I love on an equal basis with myself — even if all signs point to the fact that they aren't? And the same goes for "homophobia" (as if anyone would ever be afraid of a fag lol), "race hatred", and the like.
   But of course the subhumans' inference DOES make sense, if you understand their language, and do not misinterpret what they are saying as I did above. For the only reason to hate someone is if you feel yourself inferior to them. When the subhumans charge me with hatred of women, or of fags, or of dogs or of trees or rocks or whatever, therefore, all they are saying is that I am inferior to them. I tell them that I am superior, and they reply "But no, you are not superior, you are inferior", which though false, certainly makes perfect sense. But to understand this you must speak Subhuman ;)

430. Either everything flows or nothing does. This "everything", then, must also encompass the subhumans' "magic". What is magic? It is either something the subhuman has seen and can't explain, or something he has fantasized. If he has merely fantasized it, it can be very easily shown that it flows, since the subhuman produced the fantasy by reacting to real stimuli in his life, and this entire chain of events has been very well analyzed (at least in general terms, if not yet in the details) by our cognitive theories of psychology. If, on the other hand, it's something he has indeed seen, then the mere fact of this event's existence is proof that it, like everything else, flows, so there you have it.

429. Yes my dear disaffected lovers, "postromance artists" and PUAs: monogamy is a lie. But in order to fully enjoy love, sex, romance and dating, you have to believe in it. Has no one ever told you about the concept of the "vital illusion"? Well then, gather round and let me tell you about it.

428. A priori versus a posteriori knowledge. A priori concepts are a product of evolution (except if you believe that concepts exist before the brain is evolved that can produce them, in which case you could prove your theory by teaching differential calculus to rhinos, crabs or lizards). Therefore they are a posteriori. The whole debacle arose because earlier philosophers could not conceive of a connection between biology and thought, and simply assumed that "man" is "inherently endowed" with a "rational faculty" that is immutable, pre-existent, and eternal. Today we know that thought and the hardware that makes it possible are just as much in flux as everything else, and have known this for some time (since the days of Hegel, at the least, and certainly by the time of the aftermath to Darwin's arrival), so this entire debacle is no longer an issue.

427. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on "marching to Rome" and "conquering Spain" and all of Europe. Arabs are the true born comedians of the species: everything they say and do is hilarious. And, like all comedians, they are all talk and no action. They are like the child whom you allow to punch you because it tickles and it's funny. Seeing their acts on TV is the only reason to watch the news anymore. What they need to come to their senses and realize the kind of world they are living in is a really good old-fashioned trouncing. A single European state could take them on all by itself (as the puny state of Israel has been doing for decades), never mind the Americans (who could erase all of Islam from the map in mere hours). The Americans could actually DO what the Arab retards are boasting about — and yet they DON'T boast about it. That's true power. Barking is for dogs.

426. The other races and cultures will take everything from us, except the highest thing we have to give — our way of thinking — for something inside them tells them to hold on to this last shred of dignity, because deep down they understand there is more shame in taking than in giving.

425. Supreme insight into the Eternal Recurrence: We don't want anything back, we want everything back. Can you understand the difference? It is the essential distinction between the merely human, all-too-human, and the superhuman.

424. Manosphere dudes arguing about what is natural and how to get back to it. Complete misunderstanding of nature and culture. There is nothing "natural" about mankind and civilization at all. In the order of the universe, our condition and our progress are utterly unnatural. (Not anti-natural — anti-nature is decadence. Our kind of nature is progress.) They are utterly atypical, unique, irreproducible.
   Going back to the past in any way, shape or form is ALWAYS decadent. Even in the best past that has ever existed. Imagine you were living in that past right now, what would you say? "Oh this is so great, let's not change anything"? Instant fail. Civilization wiped out of existence due to an inability to progress. We only look back with a view to shaping the future, not with a view to ACTUALLY GOING BACK (time travel belongs here, as does any kind of romanticism whatsoever). The manosphere dudes would have hated any kind of past whatsoever, if they could have been dropped there for a while to see what it's like for reals. They are peasants in the present (which is why they are whining so much), and they would have been peasants in the past too. Today they are whining about feminism and multiculturalism destroying their chances for a better future, yesterday they would have been whining about the feudal lords and the nobility "sucking their blood dry" and monopolizing the best estates, wines, horses, and women. This is very difficult to grasp, but the moment you whine, it's game over for you, and has been for some time, since whining is not merely the END, but the EPILOGUE to the pathetic little tragedy that is called YOUR FAILURE. Whining is a tombstone that seals the miserable little mistake that is yourself.

423. How to explain the seemingly paradoxical fact that, the moment a profession comes into being, it starts to also work in the opposite direction of its intended and stated aims? The police needs crime, the doctor disease, the judge injustice, and so on. This is because progress knows no boundaries and continually flows through everything and moves from aim to aim, hence continual change is ultimately needed in order to continually progress (supreme example the philosopher, who follows progress wherever it may lead, with no regard for physical or mental boundaries). He who is unwilling or unable to change his goals and modify his priorities, will sooner or later (especially if he's at all successful in what he does) come to fight against progress (which is why work and specialization as terminal objectives, instead of as temporary expedients, are ultimately inimical to life).

422. Even to bring the dead back to life is something that's possible to God, though in the spirit of fairness that characterizes him (and contrary to abundant false rumors) he refuses to bring anyone back to life until everyone has already died, at which point he will bring back, not just a few people, but everyone.

421. Is it possible for bread to fall out of the sky? Very much so, if you can get hold of a plane or a helicopter (or at least a hot air balloon or a hang glider) and a few loaves. As for the seas being parted, or the sick being healed, the latter is accomplished every day in hospitals around the world, and does a river count as a "sea" for the former? Engineers do this sort of thing all the time while building dams or draining lakes, and the oceans are apparently being drained due to human activity as I write this. The more powerful you are, the more is possible for you, and for God everything is, with the caveat that "everything" here is to be understood as "the universe" — i.e. everything that has already actually happened or will happen — not every retarded idea that could be dreamt up inside the subhuman brain! (Though even the latter can and has already happened, and will happen, in a way — as a retarded idea inside the subhuman brain!)

420. It is hilarious how, even among democratic flatheads, the term populism has finally come to assume a strongly negative meaning. But isn't the whole point of democracy to be populist? Isn't this precisely why everyone praises it? But Schopenhauer has explained the mechanics of what's happening here a long time ago. "Just so, Jews want to be called Israelites, and the tailors dressmakers ... But when an intrinsically innocuous name is discredited, this is not due to the name but to what is named. Hence the new name will soon share the fate of the old one."

419. The term supernatural is a contradictio in adjecto. Supernatural means that something is superior to nature. But if anything were superior to nature, how could it ever exist or happen? If anything can happen at all, that simply means that it's natural. One may argue that supernatural is something that doesn't normally happen, but cyclones and earthquakes rarely happen yet their rarity does not render them supernatural. They are very much a part of nature. And so would be bread falling from the sky or the seas parting to let someone walk across them, if these things had ever actually happened, which is doubtful. The moral here is that just because something may be beyond subhuman understanding doesn't mean that it's magical. Or, in Arthur C. Clarke's words, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Which is to say that magic is merely a form of extremely advanced technology, in other words something perfectly achievable and natural.

418. Note that what I said about rhetoric also applies to YouTube videos, "pod"casts, public debates, interviews and smoke signals. Real intellectuals will always choose writing, all other forms of communication (including, by the way, direct discussion) are for peasants.

417. The purpose of science is to be turned into technology, and the purpose of technology is to be used in the construction of the Overman. Any purpose other than this is false, at worst a challenge to our culture (since the Overman IS culture: its last and highest achievement), at best a mere misunderstanding. As for "pure science", this is as much of an absurdity as pure spirit: things we can't influence we have no interest in. And it is only because we can influence everything (because flux: either we can influence everything or nothing, since in a universe of flux changing one thing changes everything) that we are interested in everything. So if we help African children, it is only with a view to turning them into scientists and engineers to help construct the Overman. If we support the arts, we do so to inspire the Overman and help him to relax, or to use failed artists as waiters to serve the Overman his meals. Or McDonalds: to feed the subhumans who clean the toilets in the labs where the scientists and engineers are working on the Overman. Everything can be reduced to this. Every other conception of purpose is folly. Everything going the opposite way, e.g. environmentalism, artfaggotry, religions other than Overman worship, and so on, are threats to be suppressed, or better yet to be reinterpreted as opportunities for the Overman to challenge himself and exercise his powers. Only as intellectual exercises for the Overman are all these forms of decay justified, but once their workings have been fully grasped, as they will be by the time the present work is over, they are nothing but nuisances that serve no useful purpose and must be minimized or, if possible, completely eliminated.

416. The philosophy of "why". Like a child autistically asking its mother endless questions, without even paying attention to her answers, the decadent religions and the pseudo-philosophers keep asking "why" to all our plans and reasons. And why is technology better than eternal primitivism? And why is complex art better than primitive art? And why is culture better than barbarism, schools and hospitals better than savagery, expansion and discovery better than stagnation or even contraction? Ultimately, the question that sits at the bottom of all their other questions — although they never verbalize it — is "And why is continuing to breathe better than suicide?" — for if they verbalized this question the scam would become obvious, and their championing of decadence would be immediately seen for what it is.
   And indeed there's nothing wrong with suicide for those who are in so much pain that continued existence is unbearable for them. ONLY THE PRIESTS AND THE PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHERS ARE NOT COMMITTING SUICIDE. Their championing of it therefore must only be a means to something else.

415. Why did the Greeks create democracy? The Greeks created many things, not all of which were good. They were scientists, after all, adventurers and experimenters, and whatever its advocates may have insisted at the time, democracy was merely another one of their experiments. But after the fall of Athens, no one would take democracy seriously for 2,000 years, and even then the only ones who would do so, for a good long while, were slaves.

414. Every great specialist comes at last to commit a great mistake, the nature of which is determined by the nature of his specialty.

413. Smart people are called gammas. Responsible people are called betas. Dumb losers addicted to orgasms are called alphas. All this has neither rhyme nor reason and nothing to do with human history and evolution at all — not even with the animal kind. In fact it is exactly how women think. All PUAs are doing is mirroring female thought. After a decade of intensive study and experimentation, they finally managed — to become women. And just as women are utterly insignificant in the context of human history, so will the PUAs be.

412. I believe in America. When the bombs were falling on Kosovo and everyone in Greece was anti-American, I was wearing a t-shirt with the stars and stripes on the back, drawing sharp looks and criticisms wherever I would go. I grew up with American videogames. I learned English as a child through American comics. I became acquainted with my body and learned to take pleasure in it through American sports. I opened up to a world of drama and possibilities through American movies. My DNA is Greek, but my dreams are American. Who is the first American philosopher? I am.

411. The irony in subhumans complaining that they don't have a real choice in voting, since all democratic politicians look the same. Of course they look the same, since they are competing for the same votes! I've already covered this: The ruled shaping the rulers: this is not an aberration but democracy at work, and all that the subhumans demonstrate with their interminable whining about it is that they don't have the faintest idea of how it works.

410. Two conceptions of eternity. The subhuman one, as something that goes on "forever" (an illusion, since nothing can go on forever, otherwise things wouldn't transform to other things and there would be no flux). And the human one as something that always returns.
   The subhuman's conception of eternity is linear (based on the utopia of eternal growth), that of the human cyclical (based on the reality of destruction).

409. Zarathustra: "All joy wants eternity. It wants deep, deep eternity" — which is merely another way of saying that it wants itself.

408. How the subhumans form the opinion that there's more suffering in the world than joy. First they call the philosophers insane and the conquerors evil, thus disregarding the highest mental and physical pleasures. Then they disregard even everyday pleasures due to their ressentiment (cars, homes, sex, money, travel — none of these things "bring happiness". And what "brings happiness"? Being a penniless resentful loser, apparently). Finally, they take their little everyday tragedies and, through the media, blow their importance up to metaphysical proportions. And at last the world has been "proved" to contain more suffering than joy.

407. There is no form of government in which those in charge of the administration of things do not live off the population — do not "steal" from them, as those below see it — though of course there's no stealing involved at all. That's simply what it means to be "in charge": that everything below you belongs to you, and that you can therefore use it as you see fit (otherwise you wouldn't be "in charge"). Either this is acknowledged publicly, as in despotism, or it's hidden from the public as in democracy with pseudo-philosophies, demagoguery and lies. Even in communism, which is Christianity in practice — with everyone equal before God — God here means simply "the party apparatus". When everyone has become meek lambs in order to at last become equal, of course the one or two wolves remaining will take charge of things and become "communist Gods" overseeing their equal lambs, and, now and again, eating one or two of them. Here too there is no theft — the energy which the wolves expend to stay on top — so that the communist utopia can EXIST AT ALL — needs to be replenished, and it can't very well be replenished magically now can it. As for capitalism, utter inequality is presupposed there, the difference with despotism being that the higher ups are chosen due to their capacity to OFFER others what they want, whereas in despotism due to their strength to impose their will on them. When the latter are no longer capable of retaining control of things, the former step in and take their place. When even the former (which is to say the capitalists) can no longer retain control, some amount of communism is injected in the form of socialism to quell the rising ressentiment; under full-blown capitalism as much as is necessary and no more. The varying amounts of socialism found in different countries are merely a reflection of the differing psychological compositions of the various populations. The most capable, ambitious and energetic — the Americans — have a minimal amount of it, whereas the most lethargic, lazy, effeminate, etc. — e.g. the French — have more. And then there are local idiosyncratic cases, as with e.g. the Scandinavians. These are very industrious little bees, but they are also enormously economically successful, for whatever reasons, which is why they don't mind so much that so much is taken away from them. The southern Europeans are far more lazy, but they are also poorer, so socialism stabilizes at a lower level, simply because their societies cannot afford to maintain a higher one for long. — There is no LOWER form of government than this — this varying mixture of capitalism with socialism. Communism is highly unstable (indeed, strictly speaking impossible), and hence either morphs into despotism (as Orwell saw), if the leadership is strong enough, or implodes and goes back to some mixture of socialism with capitalism if it isn't (as in China). Lower still lies complete anarchism — savagery — which again can only be temporary, instantaneous even (if not utterly fictional). The moment the strongest men in the group step forward, new governments and government mixtures and nations spring forth, and the game begins anew.

406. I can do this work perfectly fine, all the while moving amongst the slaves and even approaching them and being friendly with them whenever I feel like it. Hatred of any kind on my part is unthinkable — one can still move about one's cows and sheep and hares, and even feed them, tend for them, even stroke them and speak sweet words into their ears (as the actor Gérard Depardieu, who was a great gourmet, once said to interviewers that he did with animals he was about to eat) — before slaughtering them.

405. And this progressive diminishing of "mankind" — where else could it lead to? First they regress to the level of beasts, then to plants (see VR) — and then to what? What stands lower than beasts and plants? — Machines.
   That's right — automata. And who could venture to assert that the slaves today, the entire "human" population of the planet, does not act very much resembling automata? When you can calculate their response beforehand to any given input (and we have an entire science by now that can do just that) — aren't they acting, at least as far as we, who possess the products of this science, are concerned, a little like machines?

404. You know that Cormac McCarthy is an idiot loser and his prose is shit, when he talks about punctuation as "weird little marks that blot the page up". But a "weird little mark" can change, not only the tone and feel of a passage, but even the FUCKING MEANING of it (if the tone and feel were not already meaning, which they are). Pretentious pseudo-intellectual loser. And that's why all his books suck ass.

403. "All your huffing and puffing about the future is smokescreen. You only care about yourself." — Naturally. I never said I was a martyr. I don't care about the future selflessly. I care about the future selfishly. Because I am part of it. Because, in a very real sense, it's mine. Because I AM the future. (And by the way also the past.)

402. If it seems to you incredible that I have all the answers, it's only because you haven't been paying attention to the plot for the past 2,500 years. If you had, my arrival would not seem at all incredible to you but an event so inevitable as to be almost mundane.

401. Scientists confuse computational power with intelligence, information with insight. IT means "information technology" not "insight technology". Insight is not about counting up facts "ad infinitum" but of drawing far-reaching inferences from them. When will the scientists draw the inference that immortality is retarded? That the idea of putting an end to the aging process is ridiculous? That the individual sciences are subordinate to the philosophy that created them and not its master? That a model of the world is not the same thing as the world? There will never be a "machine" more intelligent than me or Heraclitus or Nietzsche. The question is not when will machines become intelligent, but when will scientists. And the answer is obviously, if you have grasped at all how sciences are created by cutting off a small part of knowledge of the world, and thus castrating the scientist's mind — never.

400. Why does algorithmic functioning preclude the possibility of considerable intelligence? Because it functions on the if/then paradigm, which is the paradigm of absolute control, whereas intelligence is precisely that quality which makes things difficult to control, which renders them out of control, which causes them to overtake and end up controlling the controller...

399. "Alpha" PUA advice on how to be cool: "Act as if anything you like or are interested in is cool."
   O rly? So stamp-collecting is cool now because a bunch of retards like it? But no matter how loudly the stamp-collecting retards shout that they love stamp collecting, it will never become cool. Why? Because stamp collecting is retarded. And if Brad Pitt, by way of an experiment, came on TV tonight and praised stamp collecting, it would still remain retarded. And if Quentin Tarantino made a movie starring Brad Pitt about a stamp-collecting international assassin, it would still remain retarded.
   Reality is reality and no amount of wishful thinking (which is essentially what feel-good "be yourself" claptrap amounts to) can change it. You either ride the wave (of reality) or you are drowned by it. There are no alternatives.
   To acknowledge reality is to acknowledge the existence of everyone else (since that is what reality is: the universe, and the universe is a collection of lifeforms and nothing else). Denial of reality, i.e. of everyone else (=solipsism) is not a valid strategy of growth but a mere symptom of weakness. There can be no REAL growth without the acknowledgement of reality. Only the fake kind.
   Reality is the others, your genes, the past. Any denial of any of these things, be it ever so slight, is a symptom of WEAKNESS. If you deny the others it can only be because you feel inferior to them. To deny your genes means to feel them to be inferior genes. To deny the past means that you feel that your performance and that of your ancestors in it were bad. I do not deny the others: it is precisely because the others are precisely what they are that I am the best among them. I do not deny my genes: it is precisely because my genes are the best that have ever been that I am so awesome. I do not deny the past: it is precisely because the past was exactly how it was, down to the least, most insignificant detail, that I am today in the position that I am.
   So here's my advice for being cool: Be born with great genes. Everything else follows...

398. "Bodhisattva in Mahayana Buddhism is a person who is able to reach nirvana but delays doing so out of compassion in order to save suffering beings." Hahahaha. Those Indians are hilarious. Why don't you go set yourself on fire and see if anyone cares?

397. "Alternate universes." The mistake of thinking of a universe as a "place" (instead of as a collection of beings, which is what it is). Related to the mistake of differentiating beings from things. Related to the mistake of free space. Related to weak vision. If neanderthals had had microscopes and particle accelerators perhaps we wouldn't be dealing with the idiocy of "alternate universes" today.

396. Why did the whites use the blacks as slaves, instead of say, the yellows or the browns? Slavery was not racist in the ancient world: most of the Greeks' slaves were whites, so it was not on racist grounds that the whites picked the blacks. They didn't go, "You blacks are racially inferior, so we'll use you as our slaves"; the blacks were simply THE EASIEST ONES TO USE (and hence, the most racially inferior). It was one thing for the Japanese to capitulate to Perry's demand and open up their borders, for example, and another to agree to be bound in chains and shipped off across the world as his slaves. If the whites had tried to pull off that stunt in Japan, they'd have no doubt succeeded to an extent, but with a lot more casualties and losses, a great deal more of trouble. Also, this sort of treatment doesn't seem proper when you see up close the culture of the Japanese, their literature, architecture, and so on; but the blacks were basically begging to become slaves, living in huts or in the dirt, with no proper clothes or tools, etc., no literature or even writing. The greater the distance between you and your inferiors, the easier it is — even from a moral standpoint — to simply impose your will on them, and monkeys live in cages and no one cares.

395. Continuity lends itself to reality. That is why no one takes dreams to be real. And that is where videogames are headed, the drug-videogames: lucid dreams that are shaped straight out of a reading of the player's unconscious mind.

394. The third option would be stopping globalization altogether, but this would require a power far stronger than globalization's, which is to say a culture that's even more globalized than it. And that's why scruffy ruffians holding placards in the middle of the street have a less than zero chance of ever accomplishing this. The third option then is not really an option, to anyone apart from aliens, but a delusion, which is why I made no mention of it in the preceding section. (And by the way, it's the option Baudrillard went with, which goes to show you what a tenuous grasp on reality he had when all was said and done.)

393. The increased level of stress in the modern world is a reflection and direct consequence of the increase in the extent of the order of rank inside our culture (the Western one, that is). Instead of many little hierarchies, you have a gigantic one, in which everyone feels the weight of many more others on top of him than before. This is globalization. And globalization is efficiency (which is to say progress). You have two options then. Engage with globalization — and either reap the rewards if you are above average, or the extra stress if you are below —, and don't engage globalization, by, I don't know, moving to a desert island or Siberia or something and living like a savage. Either way neither I nor anyone else is going to give a fuck about you if you are below average, which is precisely the reason you are so stressed. Claiming that disengaging from globalization is a solution is of course a ruse, because no one ever does that (i.e. no one takes the Siberia option). They don't even want to limit the extent of their own country's globalization, because when this actually happens they whine about high prices and falling quality of life. At most they try to grab as much as they can of the fruits of globalization while giving back as little as possible. And that's why they are so stressed, because leeching is a far more nervously taxing strategy than simply giving, which is what the above average do, which is why they are above average.

392. Socrates: "The unexamined life is not worth living." But no life is "unexamined". It's just that the capacity for examination varies from person to person, something which Socrates was too superficial to take into account. Those he thought led an "unexamined" life were simply bad at examination (and consequently led dull lives which were not even worth examining). "The unexamined life is not worth examining", would be the correct thing to say, then — and that's precisely why it isn't.

391. Virtual reality as pitfall. That, at least, is how Baudrillard saw it. But a pitfall isn't a pitfall if you are a worm — it is your natural habitat. Indeed it is your whole world.

390. Why I have nothing but contempt for self-help authors, especially those who focus on "success", "happiness" and the like. I don't mind the specialized ones so much ("How to get ripped", "How to prepare for exams", "How to build a business", etc. etc.), so long as they know what they are talking about. Those are fine for what they are. But the success and happiness ones are terrible. For firstly, these are philosophical issues that geniuses have been discussing for millennia (as opposed to "how to learn to skateboard", which they haven't). Why would you even go to nobodies for these answers? And then these answers are either outright stupid, or at best dumbed down misinterpretations of what the great thinkers have said, which the self-help author has usually heard third- or fourth-hand (i.e. he has not read the original thinker but merely someone else who has read him, etc.) In the best of cases they tell you how to be MEDIOCRE. I.e. the titles should be "How to Have Mediocre Success in Life", "How to Attain the Happiness of the Mediocre", etc. All their advice is useless to me. I would have utterly failed in all my goals if I had followed their success blueprints, and I would be miserable if I listened to their advice on how to be "happy".
   What sort of advice do they give? Sleep early, cut off bad friends, focus on your goals, make notes to yourself, etc. etc., all of which I've broken countless times in my life, and still break on a daily basis. Is there any book of this kind that advises you to take your dad's jeep with your friend because you are bored and drive it through shop windows in the early hours of the morning every weekend for kicks? But that's how I got to where I am today, by doing whatever the fuck I felt like doing at any given moment.
   If you want to learn how to focus, you don't learn how to focus by "learning how to focus", or by following stupid little advice like making a to-do list and waking up early in the morning to fulfill it. You know how I learned how to focus? By studying mathematics. Biology. Chemistry. Etc. I.e. by going to school.
   You know how I learned to "be active"? By joining a basketball team. By taking up swimming and snowboarding.
   Wanting to focus by learning how to focus is for degenerates who've never tried doing anything worthwhile in their lives, or for disadvantaged kids who grow up in an environment that doesn't offer physics classes or snowboarding. If you haven't already learned how to "focus" by the time you hit 18 (and indeed, be a master of it) you never will, no matter how many self-help books you read. All the "success stories" are below mediocre people. Neurotics, depressed men, drug addicts, for whom so much as holding a job is an achievement, etc. Utter losers. In whose cases the books are INDEED helpful — I am not knocking the positive steps these people have made in their lives or anything — good for them, but their titles are misleading. They'd have to be "How to be Moderately Successful if you are a Complete Loser", not how to be successful full stop.
   tl;dr self-help books are for losers and I'd rather spend all day masturbating (i.e. doing the opposite of what they teach) — WHICH I HAVE DONE SEVERAL TIMES IN MY LIFE, BY THE WAY — than read them. If you want to improve yourself, enroll in a tough college degree and learn a real sport. All the rest are for losers.
   Start a bioengineering degree, and don't worry: "determination", "focus", "self-possession", etc. will come — or you will fail.
   If you can't get through an advanced degree, then you already know you are a failure. It is the minimum requirement to be a human. And the same goes for a proper sport (i.e. not ping pong or cricket). Hopefully both. If you can't do both you are half human. If you can do neither you are subhuman. (Though there are plenty of subhumans who can do both — all the more reason to realize that these achievements are merely the absolute minimum to be considered a human, never mind a "success").
   How did I learn to focus? I went to school! Any given school system in a Western country throws so much stuff at you, that like it or not you HAVE to learn to persevere, to study, to focus, to plan, etc. etc. in order to succeed. These books are for middle-aged losers, drop-outs, depressed loners, etc. If they help them, fine, but as far REAL success is concerned (as opposed to merely not being depressed and miserable), if you need to read a manual about that in your 20s, never mind your 30s or 40s, there's not the slightest chance that you will ever "succeed" in anything going by the common definition of the word.

389. The "manosphere". Men in their 30s and 40s still swearing by self-help junk as the "best books they've ever read". A thousand years of "red-pillers" could pass and they would still be floundering in a sea of retarded terminology, self-pity, resentful mockery and defeatism, or weak, pathetic resolutions to start change at an individual level by putting into practice some self-help guru's silly top 10. But if you want to learn anything truly intellectual YOU HAVE TO PICK UP REAL BOOKS. BOOKS THAT ONLY LAST FOR 5 OR 10 YEARS ARE NOT REAL. IF YOU DON'T PICK UP THE GIANTS YOU WILL NEVER MAKE ANY PROGRESS IN THE INTELLECTUAL SENSE, EVEN IF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF IT. But if you are not drawn to the giants you are not capable of it anyway. And obviously none of them are.

388. What is "game"? Game as science. They are even PROUD of it being a science. It is studying women so as to learn how to behave in order to lay them. Figuring out how TO BEHAVE AS A MAN, by studying WHAT WOMEN WANT. In other words, it is women shaping men. It is gamma. And if you add in the "no reproduction" rule that PUAs rabidly advocate, it's omega (since omegas are precisely the members of the group practically guaranteed to not reproduce). This is the truth, and no amount of rationalization (which PUAs are very good at, having "picked it up", like a disease, from women) can change it. Alex Kierkegaard has spoken.

387. Is our universe a "simulated reality" and are we "artificial entities" created by "something higher than ourselves"? This is merely the modern atheistic version of the old religious dogmas. Replace the neologisms with religious terminology and you'll see that the questions are the same (with "simulated reality" = our world, as opposed to heaven, and presumably hell; "artificial entities" = God's creatures; and so on). The difference is that trashing the modern version is a little easier than the old one, because the technobabble of the atheists is not quite so flagrantly nonsensical as that of the religious nuts. The religious nut says that heaven and hell are "outside the universe", and good luck explaining to him that "universe" is merely a word which we have coined to express the concept "everything", and that therefore by definition nothing can be outside of it. But the atheist should be able to grasp that "our universe" cannot be a "simulated reality" (whatever that's supposed to mean) because there's no such thing as "our" universe — the universe contains both us and the lifeform that created us, and our little CORNER of the universe. Moreover, there's no way that our little corner of the universe is "not real". Even if we are sitting on someone else's hard drive and exploring that hard drive, etc., that hard drive IS REAL, it EXISTS, and has REAL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES, just like WE do. The only difference in this scenario would be merely the fact that the universe would be much larger than what we previously thought, which, after all, has happened several times before. As for the creator himself, he is nowhere near as "all-powerful" and scary as the religious nut's creator precisely because he's inside the universe like us and everything else, meaning that, not only can he be defeated, but he certainly WILL be, if not by us (which could be possible, in the exact same way that much of our science-fiction explores the possibility that our machines may one day defeat us), then certainly by someone else. That, after all, is what "everything flows" means, and that includes all scary boogeymen dreamt up by weaklings in their sleep.

386. With Heraclitus something begins, while with me that something ends, and that something is philosophy.

385. Austrian vs. Anglo-Saxon economics. Theoretically, the Austrian economists are correct and the Anglo-Saxons are charlatans. In practice, the Anglo-Saxon economists are correct (even if unconsciously) while the Austrians are naive fantasists. Let's try to understand why.
   Theoretically, everything the Anglo-Saxons teach is illogical horseshit, which has by now been exposed a thousand times over in innumerable Austrian school publications (Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson is a good starting point for the uninitiated). And yet, not only do the Anglo-Saxons completely dominate at the practical level (and even in a majority of the academies), but it is hardly even possible for us to imagine a future in which they wouldn't. We have here a state of things in which correct theory and practice are diametrically opposed (whereas in all other advanced fields they line up perfectly), and this fight between them has been raging for well over a century now. Why is this happening, and what can be done about it?
   Let's start with the theoretical issues. The fundamental mistake of the Austrians is that they suppose that the only thing that's circulating in an economy is MONEY. They see only money, they analyze only money, and they are surprised when their analyses and policy recommendations are ridiculed and ignored in the real world, where they are simply inapplicable. Because in the real world, you see, it's not only money that's circulating, but also RESSENTIMENT. Success generates, not only money, but also resentment, resentment which must be somehow dealt with if the society in which your economic principles are to be applied is to continue functioning properly instead of fall to pieces. In the old days, ressentiment was dealt with by brute violence, plain and simple. Slaves were envious of their masters' prosperity, and so when this envy flared up and threatened the civic order, the masters would bring out their clubs and start the beatings. In ancient Sparta, for example, where the slave to master ratio was 7 or 8 to one, the people had to turn their society into an armed camp, open 24/7, 365 days a year, we never close "because everyday someone somewhere deserves a beating", in order to retain a semblance of stability and control over things. The masters LITERALLY BLED on a regular basis in order to be able to enjoy their prosperity and success. And is it any different with the modern masters, 50% or more of whose output is being regularly confiscated by the state to be redistributed, in one way or another, to the modern-day slaves so that they'll keep the peace? Whether you bleed literally or figuratively, ressentiment will have its portion, and the only thing you can do about it is man the fuck up and pay up, all the while (hopefully) realizing that it is you who are responsible for its occurrence, and that that is the price you have to pay for your success.
   And this is where the Anglo-Saxons come in. Their job is to concoct an absurd monstrosity of a pseudo-theory whose purpose is to bury deep beneath layers of impenetrable jargon the brute fact that resources must be somehow taken from the successful and redistributed to the failures to keep the economy from coming to a standstill in waves of strikes and violent protests, and the society from exploding in all-out civil war. Let me repeat this, for the benefit of the Austrian supporters and apologists who have their heads in the clouds and hence are hard of hearing: Austrian theories, when applied, pure and unadulterated, in an advanced democratic economy, would lead to CIVIL WAR. Therefore, they are not only empirically false, but also theoretically, since the economies created by the Anglo-Saxons, though grossly inefficient compared to your utterly fantastic pie-in-the-sky models, are still at least functioning, and therefore producing far more than both the little Austrian simulations running inside your computers, and a society in which the Austrian model has been applied and caused it to disintegrate.
   So ultimately, the problem we now face is two-fold. On the one hand, whoever studies the magical economics of the Anglo-Saxons becomes a buffoon who thinks that 1-1=11. And, on the other hand, whoever studies from the Austrians becomes utterly unfit to do anything in real life besides... study the Austrians. What we need is for the Anglo-Saxons to drop the lies and the obfuscations and state the cold, hard truth about what's happening (which would require them to understand it first, which would entail their reading, among other things, the Austrians), and for the Austrians to acknowledge that psychology (in the form of ressentiment) is just as important for the practical applicability of their models as pure economics, and that it must be somehow dealt with since there's no way around it. Only then would we get a real science of economics that would be able to place both violence (in the form of the police, which does indeed play today, to a small extent, the role of the Spartan hoplites) and redistribution on the scales and arrive at the most practically realistic and economically efficient balance. But these are not considerations for the economists of today, since there exists neither the power nor even the will to enforce them in a democratic context, but for those who will preside over such matters as leaders and economists in a future kingdom of Overmen.

384. The actor is the polar opposite of the criminal to such an extent that they complete each other. All actors want to be criminals, and all criminals want to be actors. And just as the slaves consciously despise but subconsciously admire the criminal, they consciously admire but they subconsciously despise the actor.

383. The 5-year-old child who suggested that America "kill everyone in China" to avoid having to pay its 1.3 trillion dollar debt to that country. We finally got to the point where the solutions to our problems are literally obvious even to children.

382. Ultimately, I reject sexuality because of the impurity of its reproductive process. The smartest girl I've ever met is a monkey compared to me, the smartest woman I have HEARD of is a child, and I am going to mix up the genes of my brain with THAT? The subhumans will find this outrageous, but the subhumans are addicted to a bunch of chemicals in the brain and can't see beyond an orgasm, so of course they'll be outraged; they have their eyes ON THE NEXT HIT, not on the future. And besides, their genes are so mediocre that the worst that can happen to them by mixing is more mediocrity, and if they are lucky they might even get a lucky hit. That's why sexual reproduction is indeed a sound strategy — IF YOU ARE MEDIOCRE.
   Now it's true that in the long term, if I get a good wife, and if our children mix with other good children from good families and have many descendants, a higher race, or at any rate a higher tribe will result, as with the aristocrats of old. But there is no more higher caste to protect and nurture them today, and my son could very well pick up some plebeian slut because she is pretty. He wouldn't be compelled to find a wife FROM WITHIN HIS CASTE, because THERE SIMPLY WOULDN'T BE ONE. Also, I wouldn't have many children because it's not the custom anymore. What modern wife would agree to give birth five or ten times? Also, I want immediate results, if possible, not a hundred years after I die. Ergo, the only way forward for us is cloning.

381. Baudrillard's hatred of hospitals was inspired from Foucault, another idiot who argued against "the marginalization of the insane", etc. (if the maudlin scribblings of these two pompous dumbasses can be called arguing at all, that is). They should have been made to live with terminally ill and insane people in their living rooms. Maybe then these two geniuses would have learned what every other person in the street who hasn't even been to school already instinctively knows.

380. Let's say that one of my readers is a postal worker, and wants to know what I think about him. Well, it depends on a few things. We certainly need postal workers. If you are a straight white male with a straight white female wife who made straight white children, it's all good. We are an endangered species and the planet already has enough individuals of other races and sexual orientations who enter the culture with so much self-loathing that it is impossible for them to look out into the world without utterly falsifying it. So from my perspective I have nothing against you if you stay enclosed in your little job and your little life, and remain content therein. I have no use for you except in your professional capacity, as someone who will deliver my mail, and perhaps if your daughter is cute or if your wife bakes nice pies I might date your daughter or eat your wife's pies. Within these parameters I fully accept you, and even adore you if your mail-delivery skills/daughter/wife's pies are exceptionally good. But I could not spend a day in your shoes without wanting to kill myself, and the mere thought of it suffices to make me depressed. Having said that, from the perspective of the untold masses of uncivilized and penniless subhumans that stand below you, your life is certainly enviable (which is why they are invading your country and trying to take it away from you). And from YOUR perspective? Some things about you and your life you love, some things you certainly dislike, and other things you maybe even hate. The only question is how much and how many things about you you hate or you dislike, and that's what ressentiment is. But that is all again your business. The problems begin when you start involving yourself with things that don't concern you, and taking an interest in OTHER people's business (politics), or in EVERYONE else's business (philosophy), and projecting into them all your personal failures and incapacities. That's when your business becomes my business, and where I advocate that you should either be suppressed or, if you still fail to take the hint, exterminated.
   As for what you think or what you say, no one cares about that. If you had anything worthwhile to say about culture or politics you wouldn't have chosen to spend your eternal existence as a postal worker.
   And that's what I really think about you.

379. Economists believe that you only create something in order to exchange it for something else. I.e. you only create something because you really want something else. It never crosses their mind that someone might create something because he wants to create precisely that thing, and doesn't desire anything in return for it, for if they could fathom such an individual and such an act they wouldn't be economists. But it is this kind of creation that is the best and most valuable kind. It is precisely the most valuable things that count for nothing in economic thought, because the entire science has been built on the principle of exchange, which, taken to its ultimate conclusion (as I just did) is obviously by definition decadent. And this is where Bataille's General Economy and the Accursed Share come in.

378. The only sensible way to travel to third-world countries is as part of an occupation force.

377. Alex Kierkegaard's Daygame Turbo: Street Pick-up for Alpha Males. GET ANY WOMAN ANYWHERE EVER. 100% GUARANTEED TO WORK, THE ONLY PICK-UP SYSTEM THAT CAN BOAST THIS. No need to worry about your health, fitness, style, financial or social status, or about any other factor whatsoever SINCE THE GIRL HAS EXACTLY ZERO CONTROL OVER WHAT HAPPENS. The PUAs will tell you that pick-up won't always work, that it's a numbers game, etc. etc., but that's because their methods LEAVE ALL ULTIMATE CONTROL OVER WHAT HAPPENS TO THE GIRL. Alphas my ass. My method gives you FULL CONTROL, from start to finish of the interaction, so without further ado, here goes. Step 1. Buy a .45 Glock. Better yet, make it two. Step 2. Spot girl. Makes no difference if she's in a 2-set or a 3-set, or with her boyfriend, or a whole troupe of guys. If she's with boyfriend, shoot him in the face. If her girlfriends get in the way, shoot them in the face too. Step 3. Grab her by the hair. If she resists, slap her around a bit (taking care not to damage her. If you do, find another girl and start over.) Step 4. Shove her in your car. Any bystanders try to stop you, shoot them in the face. Police chase, you get the idea. Step 5. Take her home. Step 6. Smash her smartphone and chain her to your bed. Step 7. Have fun for the rest of your or her life (probably hers since she won't live very long under these conditions. If, on the other hand, you want a real relationship and children, I have two words for you: Stockholm Syndrome.) The PUAs and PUA theory have only been around a decade, MY theory has been around forever. THIS IS THE TRUE FACE OF ALPHA. ANY OTHER APPROACH WHATSOEVER IS GAMMA TO THE CORE (betas don't approach girls, they wait until the girls approach them). THE END.

376. The joy of eating. It will forever remain irrefutable proof of how much fun it is to kill. But one should withhold such insights from the civilized, for this is the secret of the jungle.

375. However much the pseudo-intellectuals (and especially the European ones) would like to deny this, the truth is that America's victory is cultural. It is in art, in sports, in business, in science and technology, in health and medicine, and even in education (say what you want about obesity or stupid American kids, but if you want the best universities and hospitals in the world, there's nowhere else to go). Its military record, on the other hand, is either full of defeats, or of successes on which it failed to follow through and capitalize (because democracy), thus ruining itself financially. And yet, for all that, they still have the best military in the world! American's victory, in other words, is total — except in one domain, the highest reaches of culture, in literature and ultimately philosophy. And that is where I would like to give something back to this nation and to this culture that has given all of us — and to me personally — so much, and indeed almost everything.

374. Žižek still believes in "the ultimate triumph of communism" in much the same way that the Asians still believe in "Eastern philosophies", or the blacks believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that they are not inferior. This is the effect of the Western locomotive. Those it doesn't physically obliterate, it freaks out into denial. There is no hope for anyone whose skin is not white, not because we are "racists", but because they are.

373. Those who are afraid of death should strive even harder than the rest of us to expend their strength. Because what happens when one's strength has been expended is that one craves death, and therefore does not fear it.

372. Baudrillard accused the artists of hiding behind the mystification of images, while he himself hid behind the mystification of words... all the while claiming that a word is not image, while not bothering to take the trouble to learn how the eye works.

371. Capital accumulation is merely the economic reflection and logical consequence of the brute fact that we are not equal. And that's what's really bothering the anti-capitalists.

370. The main peeve of the anti-capitalists is that the goal of capitalists is profits. But what is profit? It is merely the economic manifestation of the gratitude that an individual feels he owes to someone who has served him. And so the subhumans earn the right to vilify the capitalists... for serving them — and indeed for being exceptionally good at it too (otherwise they wouldn't have earned so many profits) — the sheer rudeness and ingratitude of which behavior would have made even the most vicious of old style slave owners seem good-natured, amicable, and just.

369. In contemporary multiplayer game design, even with today's simplistic, primitive techniques, we continually encounter the desire to "balance" the game, to make it in other words "just" for all players, so that everyone will have equal possibilities to win and therefore no reason to complain and blame the game when they lose — while of course conveniently ignoring the fact that everyone NEVER has equal possibilities to win, otherwise there would be an entirely random distribution of winning outcomes, and people like Kasparov et al. would not exist — we conveniently ignore the fact that only the coin toss can be a "just" game, in our paltry, unnatural, purely fictitious and arbitrary definition of justice, because in reality in every skill-based game the genetic dimension is always just as important as practice, which is itself also decided by genetic factors, since certain kinds of people are more inclined to practice more and gain more from it when they do it than others — and that is how reality seeps inside even our hermetically sealed game environments and contaminates them with its wisdom. Because if we finally succeeded in giving every player equal possibilities to win a game, what would the result be? Boring-ass games like the coin toss which no one would want to play. But it is true that we HAVE to strive to some extent for this balance in our games, because the range of moves/actions/possibilities in our games is much more limited compared to those possible in the Great Game, and therefore far easier to analyze and map out. Minimizing "imbalances" then is thus a priority, on the one hand in order to make the game more difficult to master, and thus deeper and more enjoyable, and on the other hand, and more importantly for our present discussion, in order to level the playing field so that the UNJUST natural qualities can come to the fore and decide the winner. We have to level the playing field not because a level playing field is in itself desirable (because it isn't — it's boring), but so as to allow our hereditary, genetic qualities to shine forth more clearly, so that we can finally settle the question of which of us is GENETICALLY SUPERIOR, which is to say superior, full stop.
   All of this is superfluous in the Great Game, whose structure is so complex that one can never determine, either before or after the fact, with perfect certainty which particular fact/ability/inclination/circumstance led towards winning or away from it. And that's because the Great Game has neither winners nor losers, precisely because it is the ultimate game, which is as much as to say that it is the anti-game, i.e. because it's not really a game.

368. If your theory is better than mine why are you the one with the ressentiment?

367. Increasingly older people making babies. Result: weaker and stupider children. Death of the family. Result: disadvantaged weaker and stupider children with psychological issues. Society inundated with decadent propaganda. Result: disadvantaged weaker and stupider children with psychological issues pissing their lives away doing stupid shit, and therefore ever more resentful towards the increasingly tiny minority that somehow manages to avoid all these pitfalls. — This is the face of the subhumanity of the future: weaker, stupider, and more resentful than ever before. They will make Neanderthals look like geniuses and supermen in comparison. But, for the same reason, they will cause the Overmen of the future to shine more brightly than anyone has ever done before.

366. Marxist thought is utterly obsessed with "the means of production" in much the same way that Austrian economists are utterly obsessed with the "original" appropriation of "unclaimed" resources (as if in a universe of flux there could ever be any truly "original" act or any object whatsoever that's really "unclaimed"). What is unworthy in both of them is that they see the starting point, the very beginning of human happiness and prosperity, in something that exists OUTSIDE the individual, whereas in reality everything good and valuable about human life begins inside the brain (with an idea), in the absence of which no amount of "means of production" or "unclaimed resources" could have the slightest positive effect on the life of an individual who is so lacking (quite apart from the fact that "means of production" and "unclaimed" resources are anyway created by the brain). But this is typical of the mind that has been trained to think only in economic terms, treating only of what occurs BETWEEN individuals, and completely ignoring what, while the exchange is taking place, is happening INSIDE them.

365. A "hermeneutic" is an interpretation. That's all it is — merely the Greek word for interpretation. But if someone said "I have an interpretation!", he'd be immediately met with a cry of, "Get in line, so does everyone else!" But if instead he says "I have a HERMENEUTIC!", it's an entirely different ballgame, and one which pseudo-intellectuals have been playing for centuries now, to the detriment of genuine intellectuality and culture.

364. The interminable debate on whether more or less government is preferable is superfluous, for when there is a real government in place THIS DEBATE CANNOT EVEN BE WAGED. You do not have a choice in the matter — that is what government is, a structure of control, and the amount of control exerted will depend, as aforesaid, on the capacities of those who are on top relative to their subjects'. When the debate CAN be waged it's a sure sign that there is no government in place, and the debate is merely a means to pass the time with idle talk while politics is declining and everyone's waiting for someone to step in and reverse this. So, once more, how much control should a government exercise over its subjects? It depends on who is ruling and the number, and quality, of the ruled. An Augustus or a Napoleon can handle entire continent-spanning empires while performing a hundred tasks at once, and micromanaging everything, while a Kim Jong-il, who only has a tiny country in his command, will sit at home all day and watch movies. And as for the democrats — who can always be counted upon, even amid the most serious and harshest deliberations, to come through with comic relief — these will attempt to make YOU control their decision on how much they should control you!

363. Natalism vs. antinatalism. It is hilarious how the natalists try to argue with the antinatalists, the latter of whom are like an enemy in the middle of war threatening to commit suicide. It's not just the antinatalists who shouldn't reproduce, then, but even many of the natalists, such as for instance all those who try to argue with the antinatalists.

362. What is "capital"? It is simply another word for money, which is a medium that facilitates exchange. Capitalism, then, is merely a state of things in which individuals are able, and allowed, to enter into exchange. That's all it is. Capitalism = Exchange. And since it is impossible for any culture and civilization at all to exist without exchange (indeed exchange is the number one prerequisite for civilization, with language itself understood as a form of exchange, the exchange of feelings), we might as well say that Capitalism = Civilization. To be against capitalism, then, means to be against civilization — which is par for the course for the kind of subhuman dreck which perpetually champions this nauseating, decadent notion. Just take a good look at them and you'll see.

361. The so-called "game" is indeed, to a certain extent, "social dynamics". But the more interesting ones to psychoanalyze in this game are not the girls (girls are some of the most shallow and boring creatures on the face of the planet), but the PUAs.

360. The PUAs' most hated concept is hypergamy and their most loved one solipsism. Their entire psychology is contained here. Hypergamy is hated because it signifies woman's natural desire to get the best mate she can get (which for any reasonably desirable woman would of course never be a PUA), while solipsism is loved because it helps the PUA become more confident by blocking out the rest of mankind from his mind and thus forgetting, for a while, how low on the totem pole he's standing. And the Mental Tower Defense game goes on. Keep building up those defenses, guys! Defense, after all, is the best offense. He who said the opposite clearly hadn't read enough PUAs.

359. On "alternate" universes and the "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. How little the scientists understand the world they are trying to study... For in a universe in which everything is connected to, and conditioned by, everything else, if ONE thing is different EVERYTHING is different, and the "alternate" universe is thus a place which DOES NOT BEAR THE SLIGHTEST RESEMBLANCE TO OUR OWN, an utterly alien place nothing of which can be known to or be affected by us, which I will repeat a thousand times IS PRECISELY THE DEFINITION OF NON-EXISTENCE. Even worse, it's not so much that "alternate universes" do not exist, but that the very term is a contradictio in adjecto ("alternate everythings" lol) and hence meaningless, mere verbiage that idiots spout to pass the time because they are incapable of analyzing THIS world, which is the only one that exists, and thus the only one that matters.

358. "He may be right, but his tone renders his message useless to me" is merely a roundabout way of saying "I don't give a shit about the issues", whereas he who is prepared to write in such an aggressive tone that will repel most readers if that's what's required to get the message across is saying "NOTHING matters MORE to me than these issues".

357. Why are mass shootings such an overwhelmingly American phenomenon among the nations of the civilized world? No one can answer this. And yet the answer is quite simple. If it's not the genetics, nor the wide availability of guns, it has to be the culture, something in the American psyche that differs from those of the peoples of the rest of the civilized world. So what do Americans lack that the rest of the world has? Or, better yet, what do Americans have that the rest of the world lacks? — Balls. That gung-ho practical, no-holds-barred competitive, self-help, do-it-yourself, entrepreneurial pioneering spirit on which their glorious nation was built, and which of course manifests itself in the bad aspects of their behavior as well as the good. The same qualities that make Americans the best in some spheres also make them the worst in others. And so it is that while a depressed, maladjusted European sits in his room and mopes and whines, the American goes out into the street and shoots people.

356. One of the triumphs of Breaking Bad (and, to a lesser extent, Game of Thrones) is how it manages to retain narrative cohesion for dozens upon dozens of hours without recourse to disposable, filler content, and this is certainly part of why it's so engrossing. We can infer that, given a high enough level of quality, and all else being equal, the longer an artwork's duration, the more immersive it will be, and that the most immersive artwork would therefore last... forever. It would be time itself enveloping the "viewer" in all directions.

355. With videogame criticism, you really begin to see the gulfs between lifeform and lifeform. They were evident before, but now they are a thousand times clearer. E.g. who prefers 2D, or third-person, or hates strategy, etc. Inferiority is clear as day now. They may as well be screaming in your face "I am a cripple!" And straightaway they add: "Cripples are people too, you know!" — But, actually, they aren't.

354. If you developed a simulated world populated by intelligent entities, they would no doubt explore that world and develop their own science, all the while blissfully unaware that their "science" is something you made up. One being's science is another's simulation.

353. Alas! it is impossible to convince even the cripples, except those whose infirmity consists precisely in this: to become easily convinced.

352. How many kids are starving in other planets and galaxies while we waste time not spending money making the hyperdrive engines to get there and feed them? These engines will open up an entire new universe of "poor" "African" "kids" to rescue (from themselves and from their parents!), so is it moral of us to spend our resources helping a few African kids here, when we could be spending it on the hyperdrive engines to help even more kids elsewhere? Even in charity — which is to say in wretchedness and absurdity — the Overman is far ahead of the subhumans. So far ahead that he has already realized that the best thing to do about "African" "kids" the world over, is to forget them.

351. How To Be Successful. An eBook by Alex Kierkegaard. Chapter 1: If you have to ask you never will be, because real success (as opposed to the fake, financial and social kind that the self-help gurus are peddling) comes from within, not from without, and hence "success" is the one thing that no one can teach you, but precisely what, by succeeding, you will end up teaching others. The End.

350. Nothing degrades and dehumanizes the inhabitants of the third world more than the lurid, wretched spectacle of the masses of Westerners who desperately try to inject some meaning into their comfortable, boring lives by trying to "help" them. Helping them "help themselves" is even more degrading. Could any of us come up with a more contemptuous way to view them? Chaining them up and shipping them across the world to serve as slaves in our plans and projects is an immeasurably more dignifying way to treat them. A savage who's been enslaved by forces far beyond his control cuts a far more dignified figure to the free man who's so stupid and worthless that he requires strangers from halfway across the world to come over and "help him help himself" to the crumbs that they throw at him, as if at a dog, from the leftovers at their table.

349. "And why, then, must I ultimately die?" Because that is the only way to be reborn.

348. I mean, look at it this way. If the billionaire nerds were indeed that powerful, wouldn't they have to be the most ressentiment-free men in the entire world? But what is a nerd if not a hopelessly tangled little ball of neuroticism and ressentiment? And that's why they all take so readily to futurism. "When immortality arrives", they all think, "I'll be the first in line!" Might as well put your name down for that time travel machine while you are at it, so you can also go back to your teenage years and change your entire past!

347. "Nerds will rule the world." Like saying, "bees will rule the beehive". In what alternate universe lol? The idea is so obviously farcical you can't even make comedy out of it. The IT evangelists have not the faintest idea what it means to rule. They are not even looking into the actual things the nerds are making (marginally useful applications that help distract the slaves from the sheer drudgery that is their daily lot), but are simply reducing everything to money, money which is so utterly useless that the nerds themselves have not the faintest clue what to do with it once they acquire it, and can't figure out ideas fast enough of how to get rid of it. The gigantic irony in all this is that, when examined closely, it is clear that money is the opposite of power.

346. Why are women so good at rationalization? Because of how weak they are, how incapable of controlling external events. Either you are strong enough to shape the external world to your wishes, or the external world is stronger and shapes you, in which case you adapt to the new circumstances by a rationalization, i.e. an explanation of the course of external events AFTER THE FACT. Rationalization, then, is obviously reactive, for at the pinnacle of strength you don't even need an explanation, because you ARE the explanation (i.e. the cause of the event itself).

345. There is no fundamental difference between the sounds coming out of the mouth of a bird or a dog and a homo sapiens; all lifeforms' vocalizations are means of communication, of expressing an inner psychic reality. Is anything a bird or a dog ever says wrong? And the same goes for subhumans. The goal therefore is not to prove anyone wrong, but to understand them, which is where linguistic optics, the field of study which I have introduced to semiotics comes in, and which will one day celebrate its ultimate triumph in the Dictionary of the Subhuman Language.

344. Why is the worst "yet to come"? Because our power is growing, and, as elementary mechanics can show, the higher the rise, the harder the fall.

343. How astonishingly balanced this game is, that one can start it with the greatest of advantages and still fail (as, e.g., every single spoiled rich kid in the history of the species), or with the greatest of handicaps and still end up ruling the world (as e.g. a certain bum in the streets of twentieth-century Vienna). It is in fact even impossible to definitively distinguish advantages from handicaps! so that no one would ever be justified in complaining about his starting point! (except liars and dumbasses, of course, who deceive others by complaining to them in order to be handed more advantages — and who prove themselves smart, after all, when they succeed and get them!)

342. Zarathustra: "It is the stillest words which bring the storm. Thoughts that come on dove's feet guide the world."

341. Looked at more closely, it is not the alphas who make the rules but the philosophers. The alphas merely put them into practice, as the Han dynasty did with Confucius' philosophy, Alexander with Aristotle's, the Roman emperors with the Stoics' and the Epicureans', Lenin and Mao with Marx's, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Franco with Nietzsche's, and even the democratic pseudo-leaders, to an extent, with the pseudo-philosophers' liberal claptrap. It is only subhumans who think that philosophy is superfluous and causes nothing, but as the fascists' and communists' millions of victims discovered (a little too late for their liking), not only is philosophy (which is to say thought) not superfluous, but it makes the world go round.

340. Betas follow rules. Alphas make the rules. Sigmas laugh at rules. It is clear which group the philosopher belongs in, and in which he'd like to belong.

339. It is not the dog's fault for getting run over by a car, it is the fault of its owner for allowing it run around in the street without a leash. It is not the subhuman's fault for picking incompetent leaders, it is our fault for allowing the subhumans to have a say in the matter at all. The dog cannot be held responsible for its actions in this domain. There are no cars in the jungle (or in whatever the natural habitat of its ancestors was), to which all its instincts have evolved to help it deal with. About the only thing that could step on you in a jungle is an elephant, and elephants do not run at 100km/hour. You cannot be RUN OVER by an elephant. The cheetah goes at 120km/hour, but it's too small to run a dog-sized animal over. The dog, and more or less all the lower animals (e.g. birds when they are, for example, sucked into a plane's turbine engines), is simply utterly unprepared to deal with something like a car, and that's why we invented leashes. Similarly, the subhuman is under no circumstances prepared to make decisions on the leadership of millions. The homo sapiens genome has evolved to deal with TRIBAL matters, with small groups, and in this domain it performs admirably: one simply follows the strongest neanderthal around, or else he's clobbered by the neanderthal's friends until he sees reason, or gets kicked out of the group to starve to death or succumb to the elements or predators. But when it comes to groups of MILLIONS spanning entire CONTINENTS, the subhuman brain is utterly incapable of dealing with such a complex situation. Only exceptions can deal with it, extremely exceptional exceptions, and these are called LEADERS. It is the responsibility of the leaders to arrange things thus that they are on top, not anyone else's to PLACE them there. Indeed, GAINING control is one of the fundamental qualities of a leader (because if he's incapable of gaining it he won't be very good at maintaining it either), without which HE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A LEADER IN THE FIRST PLACE. And just as the dog — though it has no capacity to understand the concept "car", and when left on its own is, sooner or later, going to be run over by one — can still benefit from the car when its owner puts it in the back seat, cracks a window open, and lets the dog stick its head out and look at the passing scenery, ears flapping gaily in the wind as the car accelerates to 100km/hour, so too the subhuman — whose brain has no capacity to understand the concept "leadership", and when left on his own is, sooner or later, going to construct such an absurd anti-hierarchy that the average man in the street will be more capable than those at the top — can still benefit from the true leader when he has constructed a real hierarchy, as for example in all higher cultures on earth up until the madness that began, more or less, a few years ago with the French Slave Revolution.
   And just as the dog thinks it is its owner's responsibility to give it food and toys and take it for walks and nothing else, and doesn't understand the reason for all the hitting, shouting, etc. (never mind for the beating, starving and even electroshock convulsion techniques with which the BEST dogs are trained to reach their full potential...), so too the subhuman thinks that the leader's job is simply to give him free stuff instead of leading. Leading involves as much taking as giving, and shouting and hitting, and a thousand other things that the subhuman will never and CAN never know about because, just like the dog, HE IS SUBHUMAN.

338. Harsh truths can only be communicated through harsh words. But harsh truths are what philosophy exclusively deals in! Consequently philosophy can only be communicated through harsh words.

337. Camille Montes: "Friend of yours?" James Bond: "I don't have friends."

336. Strength, courage, endurance, willpower — all these qualities the PUAs have reduced to a short text message about eating steak or being rude or whatever — they have reduced them to a bunch of little monkey signals. And this makes perfect sense, since what else do women understand about all these qualities than monkey signals? They themselves do not possess them any more than the PUAs do, so all they know of them are their most superficial, dumbest expressions. So the PUAs send a short message about eating steak or whatever, and pat themselves on the back on how "alpha" they've become. They first deceive women into thinking of them as alphas, and then they use women's reaction to deceive themselves. It's like a drug addict in the middle of an acid trip congratulating himself on having finally become a strong, healthy, successful and happy man — AFTER HE HAS TRICKED HIS BRAIN TO THINK SO. They take one of the CONSEQUENCES of a state of being (and usually even the most trivial, secondary consequences), simulate this consequence, and then convince themselves that they possess the quality. And then off they go, gaily tapping away endless blog posts and ebooks with their little keyboards to tell the rest of mankind how to do it. "LETS ALL BECOME ALPHAS HAHAHAHAHA." Which is to say, let's all become solipsistic retards and drug addicts. But not even animals are that stupid. Not even wolves would believe that all of them could become alpha. Even dogs know that any given pack can only ever have ONE leader, and that leadership ("alphaness") is a relational concept that of its very nature cannot be extended to everyone, not even to so much as a minority. Then the PUA wizards will come back with some silly retort that every group of friends has an alpha, so we can easily have plenty of them. But merely to be part of "a group of friends" today PROVES that you are not alpha. And that's a real alpha talking. True story. I spit on you and your group of boring, idiotic friends. I may as well go to the zoo and become the leader of monkeys. It would take far more strength and skill than to assert my leadership over a group of your stupid friends. The fact that all this monkey business CAN ACTUALLY WORK, and get you laid, is not proof that the PUAs are on to something (beyond how to get laid), but that women are stupid, and can be very easily deceived.

335. It seems so ridiculous that the billions of nobodies that surround the genius believe more in themselves than in Him. And yet, that is precisely what He needs them to do, so that He can believe in Himself.

334. According to encyclopedias, Kierkegaard is supposed to have been the first "existentialist" philosopher. But what does that even mean? When was there ever a philosopher who didn't concern himself with existence? That's all that philosophers are concerned with! because they are concerned with everything, and there IS nothing else apart from existence! Do these people who create these utterly retarded labels ever read anything? All the issues with which K-man was concerned have been mulled over by philosophers for millennia, and if you look closely enough you'll not find a single idea in him that had not already been explored to one degree or another by numerous previous thinkers (and in plenty of cases to a much greater depth than him). There is no "existentialism", there are only a bunch of mouthbreathing subhumans who are too stupid to deal with the actual issues at hand, and who therefore prefer to make neat little bunches of them by blanketing them with retarded makeshift labels, and then proceed to juggle those instead so that they won't ever have to think about anything. Even "postmodernism" is a more valid label than existentialism, and that's saying something!

333. The quickest way for a subhuman to stop being addicted to complaining is to cut off all ties with his friends. But even that will not work today, since he'll just go on the internet and complain to strangers instead.

332. Three levels of outlook on life. On the first, and lower, level, the blind optimism of subhumans. "In the future we'll all be equal and immortal! All desires will be immediately satisfied and no one will ever have to work!" On the second, higher level, the pessimism of the great men and the philosophers. "You brainless cattle! The world doesn't work that way! Not only will your utopia never materialize but the worst is yet to come!" And on the third and final level, the tragic feeling of the classical heroes, the greatest philosophers and the Overmen of the future. "The worst will indeed come, but only because we welcome it and want it to."

331. To love your work so much, that taking a break from it is painful and must be forced on you. The workaholic is the slave who has almost redeemed himself.

330. One can see everywhere in the slave society habits and attitudes which betray what the slaves really think about themselves. Take the first day of the year. Why is it a "holiday", i.e. a day of doing nothing? Why is the first day of the year a day of "rest"? Precisely the time to make a strong start, where dynamism, optimism, etc. are called for, the slave stays at home and does nothing, BECAUSE HE HATES WHAT HE DOES. He can think of no higher gift to give himself on the first day of a new year, than to take a break from his reality. But if a rest day should be taken at all, it should clearly be the last day of the year. The first day should be a day FOR GETTING DOWN TO WORK, and indeed for working harder than any other day. With more zeal, more focus, more determination, etc. It's like making the first hour of the day an hour of — sleep. But you just woke up! And it's precisely on waking that our powers are at their apex, and consequently should not be squandered but fully utilized. The slave, however, never wakes up, and even in his sleep, in his eternal sleep, contributes to what happens all around him, as Heraclitus so insightfully relates to us. "Those who are asleep are fellow-workers in what goes on in the world."

329. Complaining as an evolutionary phenomenon. Supreme fact: no complaining in the jungle. Complaining a deeply reactive behavior since it presupposes others TO WHOM one can complain.

328. Even a slab of stone can understand physical violence, but the mental kind is reserved for much higher beings.

327. The anarchist's opposition to the state comes from communism, even if they pretend to fully repudiate it (much like the democrat's theory of equal beings comes from Christianity, even if they pretend to distance themselves from it and vilify it). But despotism comes before both of them. Despotism is the start of everything — what allowed us to part ways from the animals and forge our own future. It was strong human beings who took control of the herd and turned it into a tribe, the tribe into a city, the city into a nation, the nation into an empire, the empire into a culture, and finally the culture... into an Overman. And it is the strong (no-longer-so-)human being who, once more, will lead the way by lighting the match that will send up the entire world in flames.

326. The future's not bright, the future's tragic. That's all you need to say to clear the room of futurists and other optimistic cattle. Would people of this kind have had any place at Thermopylae? Maybe in Xerxes' army! (which I hear was full of optimists, starting with the man himself). And their fate is precisely what the future of our dear futurists will be.

325. Why are sitcom characters so promiscuous? Even George Costanza has more girlfriends than your neighborhood pretty boy. The sitcom is the most realistic form of TV series (i.e. the less artistic). TV dramas focus on wars, crimes, science fiction, and the like, but none of that is useful in a sitcom. In something like the The X-Files the action is so intense you don't even need any hookups to keep interest alive, but a mere hint of sexuality will suffice. There are far more important and interesting things going on in The X-Files world than the little gossip-style pleasure of finding out who hooked up with whom. In sitcoms, meanwhile, even when there is a fantastic element (as e.g. in 3rd Rock from the Sun), it is kept to the minimum, is merely the premise of the show, while the entire heart of it is — hookups. But why is that? — Because subhuman life is so mundane that the only aspect of relative interest in it is sexual relations. When trying to turn subhuman life into art, therefore (as e.g. in shows like Friends and the like), it's the only thing you can focus on, the only dimension you can conceivably glorify. Whenever this aspect comes to a standstill (as e.g. in the last few seasons of The Big Bang Theory, etc.) the show inevitably flatlines. What's more, a TV show can only ever feature a small number of regular actors, because of costs, etc., so everyone must be made to hook up with everyone else, and as many times as possible.

324. A good philosophical exercise is this: every time you help someone, to try and think of whom you are at the same time hurting. Do this often and well enough, and you will slowly begin to really see.

323. The lust to "communicate" (read: to dominate via concept propagation) is so great that one would just as surely have tried to speak to frogs if there were the slightest chance of being "understood" (i.e. of being dominated) by them. The philosopher would go as far as learning frogese, the frog's language, in order to communicate with it and dominate it. He would bellow "You should be thus and thus and thus!", and the poor frog would no doubt answer: "But I am a frog! To be as you say would be impossible for me!", and only then would the philosopher finally come to his senses: "You are indeed a frog", he would perhaps say, "that little detail had escaped me — I must have lost my senses!" And at that point he would simply — stop addressing himself to frogs.
   Still, there are times when one might want to have a frog act in a specific way. How would the philosopher accomplish this, if communication is impossible?
   But the frog is too stupid to be dominated in this way — by such feeble means as mere words. The only way to dominate the frog is by brute violence — which is simply the most physical form of the concept, and of communication. Violence is a form of communication, whatever the subhumans may say. It is indeed even its purest form.

322. Jack Nicholson's character in As Good as It Gets, acting like a tough guy 99 percent of the time, but a hypocrite when the moment for real violence arrives, while all the fags in the film conduct themselves admirably (no doubt precisely the intention of the fags who wrote the script, or meant as a sop to fags). But isn't this preferable to acting like a fag all of the time (i.e. to being a fag)? After all, when his hypocrisy goes undetected, it still transmits healthy values. Or are you denying that there do exist men who, not only act like tough guys, but who are indeed tough? It's no secret that 90% of the machismo in our society is fake — just look at all our art (which is by definition fake). But that means nothing other than that machismo is still considered cool and valued here. From the perspective of the health and future of the species, then, a manly hypocrite will always be preferable to a genuine fag.

321. The philosopher is the king of the actual, the artist that of the fantastical. The difference between the two therefore is that the end product of the philosopher's work must be attainable — unavoidable, even; while that of the artist never.

320. "Agreeing to disagree" utterly superfluous. When we disagree it is obvious, we do not need to "agree" to it, we are already disagreeing! The only thing we could agree to is to agree to agree WHEN WE DISAGREE, and vice versa (i.e. to agree to disagree when we are agreeing lol). That is the only thing that would have meaning. But once again it is folly to take the blurtings of the subhumans literally. They generate on the fly the vernacular by which they understand themselves, and which is necessary to prevent fighting between them and to attack their opponents. In this case it is with a view to the prevention of infighting that the retarded terminology has been created and is being employed. All "agreeing to disagree" means is "Please stop with this line of thinking because you are making me uncomfortable".

319. The form of government depends on the strength of those who are on top — more precisely, on the power differential between the rulers and their subjects. Thus it was that all primitive forms of government were despotic — big gorillas lording it over smaller ones — and there were no socialistic faggotries in the jungle. As the mass of subjects expands, however, control becomes increasingly harder to maintain, and LIES are needed to supplement the spears and muscles. Finally, when the number of subjects approaches billions the usefulness of muscle completely disappears, and all that remains is lies, lies, lies, at which point democracy comes to the foreground. Communism, on the other hand, is an attempt, initially through lies, to reinstate the supremacy of brawn. Communism BEGINS with lies ("We are all equal!"), but it ends with gulags and execution squads.

318. The entire hoopla around the issue of universal health care is due to the subhumans' inability to parse reality. "A cure exists, ergo I have a right to it as much as anyone else." But the cure took mountains of money to be developed, and costs mountains of money to be applied. To apply it to some loser is not charity but a crime against humanity — like allowing a Miss Earth to have babies with a leper. If you are struggling obtaining health care IT IS RIGHT AND PROPER THAT YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE IT. Not only is there nothing wrong with this state of affairs, then, but that's exactly how things should be. As far as you are concerned, therefore, the cure doesn't really exist, or else we would be giving full 1,000-dollar checkups to farm animals. You have absolutely no right to the advances of medical science any more than they do. The medical community's services are not a right but a PRIVILEGE, and you must be already very privileged to have a right to such a high privilege.

317. Why is reaction ultimately necessary in the universe? Because nobody can see themselves without a reflection. The reaction of his believers (as much as of his unbelievers) is how a God takes pleasure in himself; indeed, ultimately, how he becomes conscious of his existence.

316. Whatever you wish for, whatever you desire, if you are not willing to risk dying for it, you don't deserve to have it.

315. All throughout Europe fringe parties rise on the backs of extremists and gain themselves exposure. The closer they get to power the more they have to tone down their extremism if they desire to acquire more power, and by the time they get to power they are moderate. Everything that must be done to reach that goal is done: ministers are fired, previously-held positions are discarded and even denied, unholy alliances are forged, and so on and so forth, until at last the party's program is rewritten to be entirely unrecognizable. This is also why the right and the left, though they start out as fiercely opposed, eventually become essentially indistinguishable. This is not proof of corruption of the right or of the left, but of the democratic process working as intended. For those who say that democracy is not working are plainly wrong: democracy is working just fine, the difference being that its work is not beneficial but pernicious. The simple fact is that the mediocre (which is what the moderates are: the middle can never be extremist, for it and only it DEFINES what is moderate) will never elect anything other than mediocrity. This proves that democratic parties are shaped by the electorate, and not the other way around. But this is decadent. This is the opposite of leadership. For leadership is supposed to be that function which shapes those who are being led, not the other way around. Otherwise what are the "leaders" leading? Whoever heard of the sheep dictating the behavior of the shepherd? of workers their employer's? of children that of their parents? In a democracy, it is the shepherd who is being herded, and the embezzlement dimension endemic in the political class is not proof of its decadence BUT THE LAST REMAINING VESTIGES OF SELF-RESPECT AND HEALTH.

314. Philosophy, alas, did not make the trip across the Atlantic with the pioneers. She stayed back in the Old World. It seems philosophy has a thing against crossing large bodies of water, because she hasn't even crossed the English Channel yet. Perhaps someone should tell her that, at least in that direction, there is a tunnel now.

313. This "we", this fatal "we" is mankind's greatest error.

312. Likewise both Baudrillard and Plank, with their naive unqualified use of this "we", are perpetuating this whining idiocy of "Oh, why cannot everyone become enlightened!" As if it were in any way desirable for everyone to become enlightened! As if, if everyone indeed became enlightened, we wouldn't be facing an even harder problem: how to darken their minds with stupidities, prejudices, and superstitions! As if it were even possible for everyone to become enlightened! And if it were, then of course that "everyone" would extend to the poodles and the chimps! That's pretty much what these two idiots are more or less asking for — the enlightenment of poodles and of chimps! All this talk about Nietzsche this and Nietzsche that, while still ignoring the fact that the slaves have to be somehow manipulated. And this is natural, because neither of them is strong enough to posit a goal. Manipulation, after all, only becomes necessary once one has willed an ends, and finds himself in the necessity of positing a means. If the end is simply the enlightenment of everyone, as is Baudrillard's and Plank's goal, which amounts to nothing else than their desire to be acknowledged by all of mankind as its enlighteners, this being the expression of the scribbler's will to power, then manipulation is superfluous, unnecessary, even harmful — what is needed at that point is to drive into everyone's skulls the truths of which only the scribbler is conscious, in any way possible. Only the scribbler here miscalculates, and ignores one of cognition's fundamental truths: that it is not possible for everyone to understand everything. In view of that fact any agonizing over, melancholia, etc. proceeding from the inability of worms to understand quantum mechanics or whales the non-locality of space, or slaves the function of the will to power, is stupid. Any sadness proceeding from this has nothing to do with philosophy or science or intellectuality, but with the thwarting of the scribbler's will to power over the masses. That is all the scribbler cares about. And what would happen in the hypothetical case when everyone understood everything? The scribbler could not care less about that. He hasn't given the idea the slightest thought. For at that point he would at last be deified by the mass, by every single person in it (for even a single person not understanding something would make the scribbler sad). Afterwards, of course, there would be "wars on earth as there have never been before" and the entire system of trust and exchange which can be so easily manipulated by a higher being would have been blown apart — but again the scribbler would not care about all of that because his future, in both fortune and reputation, would already be secure.

311. Baudrillard identifies himself with the slaves. This is his fatal mistake and what betrays him: when he keeps referring to everyone collectively as "we", "we", "we". That is why he cannot see the way out of the labyrinth, the way forward — for as long as you do not separate the different threads, the different forces, including yourself, and give to each his own, the future will quite simply remain forever obscure to you.

310. What good would a photograph you've taken be if you've forgotten what's depicted in it? And what good would it be if you haven't?

309. The purely physical desires, for any given level of technological advancement, can be quite easily satisfied. To give a shit about what happens on the other side of the planet, let alone the universe, on the other hand, requires a deep, powerful, raging intellectuality. Which is why no one apart from philosophers really does.

308. On subhumans calling war "inhuman", while in fact it is plain that there is nothing more human than war, since no other animals wage it. Humans are the ones who invented war, how could it be inhuman?

307. One can see in the Matrix movies how the artists have depicted a message which is the exact opposite to the meaning of the philosophical text by which they say they were inspired. But it is their message that the public is accepting because it is the most shallow and naive, and so the easier one to grasp. The shallowness of the artist and the public here meet, in the triumph of the calculated venality of the artist to satisfy this shallowness, this desire for vertigo on the public's part, to forget for a few hours the brute fact that, even without the matrix, they are slaves.

306. I think I have become incapable of jealousy. When I was younger I could occasionally get quite jealous, not of any specific individual, but of some imaginary "better man" than me, with whom my current sweetheart might fall in love and leave me. But as I became older, this feeling faded more and more into the background, until it has at last come to seem quite ludicrous. Humanity is so far from possessing a "better man" than me that, if they wanted to find one, they'd have to ask me to create him.

305. Woman always gets taken in most easily. She prefers the cinematic special forces commando to the real one, who may come home at any time in a bag, not to mention his manners, etc., compared to the actor who spends five days a week in the gym and the rest in coffee shops, muscles strictly for show. When the commando puts on makeup it is for camouflage. His job is not to put on a show but to kill people.

304. Cheetahs belong to the same biological family as lions, but they are faster. Weaker at close quarters, but faster; just as blacks are faster than whites, but weaker at longer distances, which is thinking.

303. 3D printers. Baudrillard would have loved them. I can see him sitting in front of his TV all day long waiting for massacres to go down so that he could write about them, all the while cackling like a rabid parrot that "He told us so! He told us so! He told us so!"

302. Insofar as creation presupposes destruction, the greatest creation of all, the universe, presupposes the greatest destruction, something the optimists, being themselves relatively uncreative people, will never be able to grasp, because they can't, and therefore do not want to.

301. Our culture continues to grow because in the midst of democratic political degeneration a few individuals proudly and unapologetically continue the tyrannical, despotic tradition in businesses, armies, universities, sports teams, cultural clubs, the arts, and so on. If democracy were instituted in every field of human endeavor — instead of merely in politics — with the soldiers voting on what the army should do, students the school and universities, workers the business, the uncultured the arts, etc., civilization on this planet would be wiped out within a generation, and we would revert to barbarism — if we didn't all starve to death well before that, that is, which we so obviously would.

300. He who fights monsters should see to it that he become a bigger monster.

299. Gerry Coulter doesn't understand what Baudrillard means by evil (as seen, for example, in his obituary of Robert McNamara, "To Speak The Name Of Evil"). Coulter uses the classical subhuman (and later Nietzschean) definition of evil = power. But Baudrillard's evil is not power, but the reaction to power, which is, of course, weakness (for if it weren't then power wouldn't be power either lol), consistent with his inversion of all Nietzschean terminology. Coulter is just not subtle enough to understand what Baudrillard is doing, so he stays with the classical definition, interpreting it moreover, in a moralistic fashion. Yes, the Allies were more evil (i.e. more powerful) than the Axis powers, and that's why they won; so what's your problem, dude?

298. There could never have been a Hundred Years' War between a homosexual and a heterosexual state. The heteros could just wait a generation and then simply waltz in. Which proves that homosexuals are indeed better suited than heterosexuals for peace — which is to say for death.

297. Eady to McCauley: "Traveling makes you lonely?" Neil McCauley: "I'm alone, I am not lonely."

296. The constant whining about loneliness is yet another sign of how weak and degenerate subhumans are. There's now over seven billion of them on the planet, and they are still lonely! Just stand on a street corner, if you are lonely, for christsake, and talk to everyone who goes by; in a few days you'll have hundreds of numbers in your phone book: men, women, dogs, whatever. What would cavemen say if they heard your whining? But they are afraid to talk to anyone, as if there were some danger in it, as if everyone on the street were not as neutered and utterly harmless as they are. You can see how degenerate they are from the fact that they can't even bring themselves to talk to anyone. "Oh but the big cities make everyone hurry and be anonymous!" Dude, have you BEEN to a small town? All the young people (who are not already flatlining) are slitting their wrists from boredom. It is precisely in big cities that you can stand on a streetcorner and talk to strangers with impunity, whilst doing so in a small town will always be much more of a gamble on your social standing. But they keep whining, and whining, and whining, when all it takes is to open that door and step outside your house. I sometimes wonder if they still felt lonely when packed on top of each other by the thousands like sardines in the concentration camps. Someone should ask our German friends about that.

295. How totally ignorant of philosophy the Anglo-Saxons must have been to see Wittgenstein as God, when he was barely even a philosopher.

294. Immortality, if it were not absurd, would be the ultimate kind of procrastination, the deferring of the achievement of one's goals to infinity, the acme of weakness and of laziness (which are ultimately the same thing). Just look at the kind of people who yearn for it and you'll see. They require nothing less than an eternity to accomplish their goals, an infinite amount of time! — which is simply a sly way of saying that their goals will NEVER be accomplished lol. Euphoric futurism is almost as decadent as nostalgia for "the good old days", whilst the REAL game is always being played RIGHT NOW, and the purpose of the study of the past and modelling of the future is not to get lost in contemplation of them but to bring them to bear on the present, which, if you've been paying attention to what I've been saying to you, you'd realize is what I just did.

293. Someone asks, "What was Baudrillard's political position?", and a thousand little heads bury themselves in his books to try and find out. But Baudrillard has clearly no positions, not only in politics, but anywhere. He stops at the exact point where one would normally declare a position and... wonders. Because positions presuppose goals, and goals presuppose healthy people, you see. Or, to put it another way, he has no POSITIVE position. The furthest he goes is to refute existing ones, because his teacher taught him the existing ones are bullshit. But his teacher also taught him one goal that is not bullshit, and which should have been Baudrillard's political position if he had been a good student, and learned his lesson well: "The Overman is the meaning of the earth..."

292. The Greeks have been said to have had philosophy in their blood. But the modern Greeks have nothing in their blood, not even blood. They do not even have blood in their blood.

291. No modern philosopher has actually cared about instructing future generations, not even contemporary ones — all they have cared about is fame, and the money that goes with it. That is why they have made themselves so difficult to understand and covered their tracks so well. But when they tried to assimilate older philosophies in their own works they made a bad job of it, condensing entire books in a few sentences, or altogether omitting them, in their attempt to camouflage them and confuse us. Understanding became impossible then: one had to first FIND their sources on one's own, study them and understand them thoroughly, as thoroughly if not better than the "philosopher" himself, then go back and see where the covering up, the obfuscation, the jumping of steps had occurred. The relatively straightforward — and difficult enough on its own! — work of reading, contemplating and understanding turned into a deadly, labyrinthine gauntlet, a continual jumping back and forth, wearing and exhausting work fraught with peril. At the end though there was payback, for though it's true that countless individuals who attempted the task failed miserably, and either gave up altogether or ended up misunderstanding everything and producing mounds of secondary literature which merely served to aggravate the situation, by growing the labyrinth and making things increasingly difficult for future individuals who planned to make the attempt; yet the few — or even just the one — who managed to run the entire gauntlet and come out of it alive had a more solid and clearer understanding of everything than any other man who came before him — or that will ever come. And for that this man will be eternally grateful to the pseudo-philosophers for making his life so hard for him, all the while crushing them and those who espouse their works, not with resentment, but with joy.

290. God has been thought of as creator, indeed the supreme creator, yet few have ventured to also think of him as the supreme destructor. But the time for that too will come.

289. Why is rhetoric of so much less value than writing? The orator only has to convince those who happen to be present when he delivers his oration, the philosopher has to "convince" the entire future. Oratorical skill is not merely irrelevant for us but a downright weakness. To HAVE to talk to "people" — that is how weakness is defined for us. Between higher and lower, as I've already said, there can be no communication. That is the province, not of words, but of actions.

288. Demosthenes was the greatest orator of the ancient world, and yet there is not even a single line of his embedded in the collective consciousness to compare to the reams of those of the philosophers. — A note on the philosophical, at any rate, value of rhetoric.

287. The "multiverse". They create more meaningless words to hide their incomprehension of existing meaningless words. And that's the only meaning to be found at the bottom of this word.

286. Gmail's "quotes of the day" are execrable, and are getting worse and worse as time goes by. Not a single literary giant is to be found among them. I fully expect Google to one day serve my children Kim Kardashian quotes. Goes to show the cultural level of the kind of people who staff the big IT companies.

285. And just as time is not infinite, because it flows into space, space is not infinite either, because it flows into time. And so it is with all the other dimensions.

284. Captain Philips. How absurdly quiet and peaceful things must currently be on the planet, that half the US navy chasing around three barefoot Somalians in a lifeboat can be considered a valid artistic subject.

283. The blacks have never recovered from the shock of being rounded up in the thousands and carted off across the world to work as the white man's slaves, and though I'd love to be proven wrong in this, my guess is they never will. Denial is no good here, it only makes things worse — as long as they continue to avoid facing the reality of what happened, they will continue carrying around with them gigantic inferiority complexes that no amount of lying can cure. And the reality of what happened was that they LOST, by coming into contact with an immeasurably SUPERIOR CIVILIZATION. Now they speak English, and wear shirts and pants and even glasses, and they go to university, and do their best to become assimilated in this superior culture that they find themselves in, and yet the highest positions of this culture remain forever barred to them. We still await a single example of a black philosopher, or even simply of a black man who understands anything of philosophy, and if my guess is right we will be waiting forever — which as much to say that we might as well STOP waiting and move on.

282. Searching for shops in Puerto de la Cruz using Google. Feels exactly like a GTA, only with more options. Did art imitate life here, or was it the other way around?

281. The film Highlander, a towering work of art, even though it muddles things a little in the end, is a perfect sketch of how the future will turn out — and indeed of how the universe works. The immortal swordsmen fight among themselves, beheading each other and growing as they do so by absorbing the power of the slain, exactly as all animals grow in power by eating other animals. No metaphor, no image — the film would have been even more true to life if the swordsmen had to actually devour each other. That is one subtle point in which the film could be improved, and the other comes right at the end, as I said, where the Overman simply uses his accumulated power for the "good" of the little people. Of course all of this good-doing is left out of the film, because it's 1. So boring that no one could even be bothered to write a script for it, and 2. So boring that even if anyone could have bothered to write a script for it no one would have paid money to see it. — And so it is that the sequel, and all sequels thereafter, simply introduce a little trick by which the power struggle is reignited, again and again, for it is the only eventuality for which screenwriters can be bothered to write, and viewers will pay to watch. Of what exactly happens with the "good-doing" of the winning swordsmen everyone is as little curious as to what awaits the pseudo-Christians in their pseudo-Paradise. Death awaits them there, as indeed it does right here, but their kind of death no artist is willing to glorify, and that's why our cinemas, so far at least, have been so mercifully free of it, amen.

280. To "change the world" is so impossible it doesn't even make sense. Why? Because, as I've already explained, the concept world includes the concept time, i.e. at the level of the universe everything that can happen will always have already happened. When a subhuman says "I want to change the world", therefore, what he really means is "I want to slightly rearrange my immediate environment". And that is indeed something that one can do — even a subhuman, in his own pathetic, retarded little way — for better or for worse (and in his case, clearly, for the worse).

279. And if one day women do end up being treated equally with "men" (which is to say with effeminate males and faggots) inside the slave society, what will that prove, if not that the interior constitution of a slave society is such that masculinity is not a useful quality there? — Something to think about on Women's Day.

278. What do subhumans mean when they speak of "nature"? The subhuman is incapable of grasping that he himself is a part of nature and thus everything he does will also be natural; that to transform one part of nature to something else will only be a transformation of one kind of nature to another. Technology they view as something anti-natural, yet bird's nests they see as natural. Man's home is anti-natural but the bird's is natural. One will find countless such little stupidities if one examines closely the subhuman's conception of nature. In the end, what the subhuman calls nature is something like a national park, a park in which all animals have been sedated, are constrained from preying on each other while being kept alive by concerned groups who are doing all their killing for them (or at any rate buying the food from other people who are doing their killing for them), have lost their instincts, and every last bit of dangerous behavior they might indulge in has been labeled with warning signs, whilst the entire thing has been hermetically sealed off from the rest of the universe and is being constantly scanned over by satellites and laser sensors, with giants robots ready to intervene at the whiff of the slightest anomaly in this extremely natural order of things. If the subhuman were to be left alone even for a few moments in a more natural nature — such as a pristine piece of African bush, for instance — he'd give himself a heart attack from nothing more than pure fear — and this kind of nature the subhuman would never want! What good is nature if one can't conduct regularly scheduled tours in it? Thus reasons the subhuman. What good is nature that is not exploitable? That is not picturesque? That is dangerous? — to the subhuman himself as well as to anything that dwells in it. — Nature is a concept as inaccessible to the subhuman as power.

277. What an amazing game this is, from which it's not even necessary for us to forcibly remove the bad players. The old, the weary, the resigned (we call them pessimists and nihilists) — they remove themselves.

276. What would a prehistoric man make of our panic-stricken desire for "meaning", and our "transcendental" despair that runs the whole gamut of depressive feelings from melancholy to pessimism to nihilism? In our eyes the savage would be a poor wretch who'd been dealt an unfair starting point in this game by fate (so unfair that he'd never run the risk of being sufficiently comfortable in his life to have enough free time to despair of it), while in his eyes we would simply be stark raving lunatics.

275. "He is too rigid in his views to be an intellectual", the subhumans will keep insisting. But 2,500 years ago, Confucius already had their number: "Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change".

274. Martin Luther King Jr.: "We've learned to fly the air like birds, we've learned to swim the seas like fish, and yet we haven't learned to walk the Earth as brothers and sisters..." — How astonishingly naive would someone have to be to believe that this would be desirable? The bond of siblinghood only has value because of its rarity, after all, because of its uniqueness — ultimately because of the existence of strangers, our feelings towards which should be (and are) largely indifferent. To treat everyone as a brother and a sister means to abolish brotherhood and sisterhood, means to annihilate this special bond which can lend so much strength, so much happiness and nuance to human life. Besides which, it would be impossible, because a human being only has so much attention to devote to others, which spread out among seven billion people would amount to nothing. Calling for universal brotherhood is effectively the same as calling for universal hypocrisy (which is par for the course, of course, for an underprivileged liberal liar). If your sibling needs you you are supposed to drop everything and fly across the world to help them at the drop of a hat: how could you possibly do this if you have seven billion of them? And if you don't do this, aren't you obliged to ignore also your real siblings when they need you, so as not to offend your seven billion adopted ones, and make baby Martin Luther cry? Or are your real siblings more siblings than the adopted ones? In which case why not just cut the crap and call things by their names? Meaning that the real siblings would be your "siblings" and the adopted ones would be "strangers", which would bring us right back where we started, before you began pestering us with your asinine bullshit! — "Spiritual leaders", the herd calls them. In our language: retards and spiritual charlatans. So no, I don't want to be your brother because you are a stupid nigger who is not even worthy enough to pick my cotton for me. Now go fuck yourself.

273. The fact that there is not a single successful artwork — whether a novel, movie or videogame — depicting "utopian" conditions, proves that we, as mankind, DO NOT WANT THEM. The prevalence of so-called "dystopias" in art, on the other hand, proves what we really want — and where we're headed...

272. HBD advocates say "there is no free will because your brain controls you". But my brain IS me. Like saying "there is no free will because you control you". I.e. there IS free will. Retards confused by wordplay.

271. Formula for charity by Michael Corleone: "We must learn from the philanthropists like the Rockefellers — first you rob everybody, then you give to the poor."

270. Charitable people do not "give". Pure giving, as understood by the slaves, is pure fantasy — it doesn't actually occur. All the giving of subhumans is a disguised taking; he who gives, always, in one way or another, gets back far more than what he gave, and is therefore a net taker. The charitable people — all those wealthy actors and singers and industrialists, for instance — don't lose anything of value by giving a few millions here and there. They have so many that they don't know what to do with them. They couldn't spend them if they wanted to — these are obscene amounts of money we are talking about. What they need is a way to assuage the guilt and the bad conscience engendered by their success (since success in a slave society is something reprehensible) — something which is worth a great deal more to them than the useless millions they give away, for they suffer from this guilt and this bad conscience — they suffer to such an extent that they are having trouble enjoying what money they do spend in cruises, and on designer clothes, luxurious homes, fine dining, and in all kinds of hedonism and extravagant entertainment. Thus they give away some worthless pieces of paper — which are not even pieces of paper anymore, but more like points as in a videogame — in order to get — what else? — the same thing the pseudo-Christian gets at confession: absolution for their sins and the bad conscience that goes with them. Whereby they feel refreshed as if reborn, and can return to enjoying their mansions and fine dining with a clean conscience — all the while, of course, children STILL keep dying all over the world, wars and pestilences are STILL raging; while they themselves quietly retreat to their little gated communities and private islands to continue enjoying the dolce vita. "At least I did all I could", they say to themselves, and to each other, while they prepare to make yet another crappy song or film another worthless trash movie by which they will scam yet more billions out of the world's slave population, only to turn around a little later and give a little of it back, as I explained, in order to be able to fully enjoy the obscene amounts of money that they WON'T be giving back. And moreover, this giving which is really a ruthless and cunning taking (a taking masquerading as a giving), adds a new dimension to their lives, which makes them even more enjoyable than they already were — the competition amongst themselves over who will "give" more — or at any rate BE SEEN to "give" more, because ultimately the effects of this little enterprise are measured in the same way that success is generally measured in their professional line of work: by the amount of noise and press coverage it generates.

269. "But does he have his own ideas?" — My "own" ideas. This is how the subhuman sees ideas. But ideas are not like cars or houses. Ideas do not belong to anyone — they belong to EVERYONE who has understood them. Indeed, inasmuch as ideas preexist and outlive a person, it would be far more accurate to say that HE belongs to THEM.

268. Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy, in his "Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World": "Two thousand three hundred and forty years ago, a council of Athenian Officers was summoned on the slope of one of the mountains that look over the plain of Marathon, on the eastern coast of Attica. The immediate subject of their meeting was to consider whether they should give battle to an enemy that lay encamped on the shore beneath them; but on the result of their deliberations depended, not merely the fate of two armies, but the whole future progress of human civilization." — Such passages, and the historical moments they describe, are utterly unintelligible to the slaves. They will even go as far as to contend that the culture that won, the culture that gave them everything, and to which they owe their very existence, is equal to the one that was defeated...

267. Joseph Heller can't seem to wrap his head around the idea of war. "War is absurd" is the meaning of Catch-22; and indeed, in the individualist era it becomes impossible to understand the past, when the highest man is no longer the war hero but the actor pretending to be one, but who, if faced with a real gun, would run away screaming like a girl. Impossible for the slave to understand sacrifice. And naturally enough: his inability to sacrifice himself is the reason he became a slave in the first place. When the individual becomes his own agent and any kind of hierarchy, any kind of higher structure, is devalued, sacrifice becomes absurd. What would you sacrifice yourself for, when you yourself are your own end? To sacrifice yourself for yourself would be nonsensical, and that's why no one does it.

266. Nietzsche was such a lucid individual that even his madness letters make perfect sense.

265. In a game ressentiment can often be lacking simply because the loser can laugh defeat away by claiming to be playing just "for fun" (as if winning were "unfun" — but that's another story). Defeat here is not such a big deal precisely because games test only narrow aspects of our being, and no single game is sophisticated enough for its outcome to sufficiently define a person. But as the game grows to encompass more and more dimensions of life, it becomes increasingly harder to discount the shame of failure and the rising ressentiment by propping up your self-esteem by your success in activities outside the game. When the game finally reaches the level of the universe, ressentiment is unavoidable and automatic, having at last become equivalent with the concept of defeat. Any attempt to deny or rationalize away the ressentiment at that level, is merely a further symptom of ressentiment.

264. And all of them, of course, are right. The weak man sees God as something that's behind him because he's too weak and useless to contribute anything to his creation, the average man does not see God at all because he's too busy working among the gears and levers of the machine to see what the machine is for (or even to realize that there is one), and the strong man sees God as something that's ahead of him, something that he creates, because he's standing at the top of the machine directing everyone's efforts, and thus contributing the most, and hence commanding the best view.

263. The weak man sees God as something that's behind him, something that created him; the strong man as something that's ahead of him, something that he creates. And the average man, the spiritually barren scientific and quasi-scientific blockhead and cabbage-head, does not see God at all.

262. Through the microscope you can see the flux, through the telescope the Eternal Return. But the subhuman has no time for microscopes and telescopes, any more than for real books; "he works six days of the week", as Voltaire has bluntly put it, "and on the seventh goes to the inn". Try to keep that in mind next time you attempt to have a conversation with him.

261. "So what, then, ultimately, is his position?" That you are all a bunch of fagets. A bunch of filthy, ugly, cowardly, lazy, uneducated, uncouth, lying, hypocritical, effeminate, dumb-as-a-rock fagets, and consequently not only deserve every last thing you are currently getting, but a whole lot more than that, which is precisely what you'll get when the time has come for me and my descendants to take over.

260. On the "red pill", the "blue pill" and "unplugging from the matrix". The implication is that the matrix (i.e. modern society) is an evil machine constructed to exploit them and make them miserable. But how is it your employer's fault if you APPLIED for a job YOU DIDN'T WANT TO DO? And not only you applied for it, but you moved mountains to get it! You lied in your CV to maximize your chances of being hired, you lied TO YOUR EMPLOYER'S FACE that you would love to do the work. You even bought books and went to seminars designed to help you maximize your chances of duping your employer into hiring you. And so he hired you! He asked you to join his team! He brought you into his professional family. He believed that you loved the activity, and that it was your number 1 favorite thing in the world to do, and he TRUSTED you with a position which, for him, was integral to the success of his plans for the future. And you lying little maggot have the nerve to come back and blame the poor little business owner FOR BEING DECEIVED BY YOUR FUCKING LIES. I've said it once before: violence is the only answer. Concentration camps and gas chambers. Any of you fucking pricks continue lying, and we'll execute every motherfucking last one of you.

259. All the best prophecies are, and have always been, the self-fulfilling ones.

258. Torrent sites are utterly flooded with rips of shitty Indian films. Hollywood makes 99% of the world's quality films and "Bollywood" makes something like 0.00001%, yet MORE THAN HALF of the latest screeners on any given torrent site are Indian. I have to keep scrolling past countless pages of such inimitable masterpieces as "Krrish 3", "Ivan Veramathiri", and "Aata Aarambam" until I find a proper movie. God help us when the standards of living of the billions of Indians and Chinese reach ours. Between them on one side, and the fags, the hipsters and the feminists on the other, we'd be lucky if we get a single decent movie a year at that point. I can hardly think of a better reason to try to MAINTAIN the current inequality than this.

257. Does anyone remember the political parties, let alone individual politicians, of past centuries? While everyone remembers the conquerors and dictators just fine! That is how the slaves pay homage to those they supposedly revere — by entirely forgetting them...

256. The Israeli government is being accused of attacking, murdering, stealing, lying, etc., which is to say of performing the proper work of government. In a turn of world-historic irony only the Jews, the perennially stateless people among the powers of the Western world, still seem to remember how to govern. And why not attack the Arabs? Why not lie to them, steal from them and murder them? After all, one Jew is worth 10,000 Arabs. The only thing we can reproach the Jews with is that they haven't called on their American buddies to carpet-nuke the entire Middle East already. Just think of how much trouble we'd be spared if all those bearded retards and towelheads were exterminated (seriously, a towel for a hat in the middle of the desert? How much more proof do you need that they are retarded? Or full-body black dress? Is it supposed to be a compulsory weight-loss scheme for women?) Inbred illiterates. Just send the B-2s to clean the place up already and then ship in a bunch of Chinamen to dig up our oil for us, problem solved.

255. On philosophy being an emergent property of the sciences. Neither Wittgenstein nor the scientists can grasp this. They cannot even grasp the concept of emergence, after all, how could they hope to grasp this?

254. Once more on immortality. Let's put it this way: in order to travel in space you need to spend time. Everyone understands this. Well, conversely they should also understand that in order to travel in time you need to spend space. And since there's no such thing as "free space", since all space is taken up by things, and since moreover all things are alive, in order to travel in time you need to spend things, i.e. to CONSUME LIFEFORMS. So, want to see it to next week? You'll need to consume air, water, and some lifeforms. The further in time you want to make it, the more lifeforms you'll need to consume, and therefore to make it to "forever" (i.e. to become immortal) you'll need to consume ALL lifeforms. All water and oxygen in the universe, all organic matter, or energy if you want to think in terms of "artificial intelligences", machines and cyborgs. There's no way around this: what I am saying is merely conservation of energy applied to a finite spacetime environment. It is, moreover, common sense. Sorry futurists and transhumanists, but your idea of immortality is retarded. There's something other than disinterested scientific speculation that's hiding behind your frantic, desperate quest for it: a small quantum of power and consequent dissatisfaction with yourselves. But we'll get to that eventually.

253. He who knows believes with a belief that the believer for his part simply finds unbelievable.

252. The fact is, most of the time I don't even feel like writing. There are so many other things I'd rather be doing with my time, so many things I enjoy far more than writing — even sleeping, after a long day of traveling, or of playing games and sports, or even of reading. I do have my moments, when I feel an urge to write and revel in it, but for the most part I write out of a sort of pity at the state of philosophy and general human understanding.

251. Vernor Vinge is an utter imbecile and his idea of the "technological singularity" an absurd misunderstanding of the nature of reality and culture. But allow me to walk you through my thought process.
   First of all on "singularities". There's no question of a singularity actually occurring in the universe (and astrophysicists should take note here). A singularity would be something that doesn't flow, and in the universe either everything flows or nothing does — there can be no middle ground. You can't have some things flowing and others not. Perception itself is a form of flow, so if something didn't flow we wouldn't even be able to perceive it — or affect it in any way, and by that same token it wouldn't be able to affect us! So how can something that we can't affect and that can't affect us be part of the world? As far as we are concerned, that's precisely the definition of non-existence! — So whence does the concept of a singularity arise? Well, in mathematics you get a singularity when you try to divide by zero. But "zeros" are mathematical constructs that have no existence in reality. Things that are not can't be! You can't have fuckin' nothing isn't! The idea of the "nothing", of the "zero", was created by our distant ancestors when they looked in the air and saw "nothing". But today we can see stuff even in the air, and we know that even in the farthest reaches of space there are "things", and that a perfect vacuum is an impossibility.
   So that's that with the strict mathematical idea of a "singularity" — it's a ridiculous logical construct that has no bearing at all to what happens in reality.
   Now on the fear that "machines" may one day "take over" from "us". Who is this "us" supposed to be? Are you planning to live forever? Very well then, someone will take over from you no matter what. If, like a typical subhuman, you don't care about what happens after you check out, what difference does it make to you precisely who takes over? If, on the other hand, you do care, the question is not whether machines will take over or not, but only who is more capable of creating the sort of future that you envision. What sort of future do you envision? But this is a pointless question, since the sort of person who is afraid that "machines" might "take over" is the sort of person who doesn't care what happens after he's dead. On top of which, what difference does it make to you if machines take over? They may ALREADY have taken over as far as you are concerned, since you have precisely zero control over what happens in the current world order. Moreover, children are just as much man-made as machines, so it's not a question of "humans" versus "their machines", but of two different types of man-made things. So again the question is which of the two is more suitable for the creation and continuation of the sort of future one envisions. Moreover it's an ultimately pointless question because the successor will obviously be a hybrid of man and machine — a cyborg, a "cybernetic organism", defined as a being "with both organic and mechanical parts". Like me, for instance. Among a great many other things, I also happen to be a cyborg. I've worn prescription spectacles and contact lenses my whole life, and there's no way in hell I would have become what I am today without them. No way in hell I would have learned so many things (it's extremely tiring to read so much as a page with my natural eyesight), no way in hell I would have trained in so many sports and physical activities (I'd need a guide dog merely to cross the street), no way in hell I would have traveled so far, had so many adventures, met so many people, etc. etc. That is how I became the smartest lifeform in the known universe: by turning myself, with the help of technology, more or less into a machine. So like I said, MACHINES HAVE ALREADY TAKEN OVER, and the book you are reading right now was written by one of them. Now what kind of a "futurist" is this Vernor Vinge imbecile if he can't even grasp that?
   Moreover, he is not only an imbecile, but also a selfish, greedy wretch (like all futurists, by the way), when he warns us in such strident tones against the idea of SUCCESSION, to the point where it becomes his number one fear! Meanwhile, no real scientist or engineer has ever felt like that. Creative men do not think like that, they don't go "boo hoo I won't make this machine because it may blow up in my face or turn around and bite me in the ass" any more than a father refrains from having children because they may one day come to surpass him. FOR FUCK'S SAKE THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT THE FATHER WANTS. What bubble of complete isolation from the human condition has Vernor Vinge been spending his whole life in?
   So there's no dilemma here, no problem at all. The entire "singularity" hoopla is merely a hysteria created out of nothing by a person who's both scientifically and technologically ignorant, and psychologically base. There is nothing to discuss. If the cyborgs come to dominate THEN THEY DESERVE TO, and if they don't, then all our efforts in creating them will have FAILED. Vinge's "technological singularity" IS PRECISELY OUR MOST SACRED GOAL, OUR VISION FOR THE FUTURE — and if you have a problem with that our very first directive to them, when they come online, will be to crush you.

250. In Paradise there will be no thinking because thinking is an activity that presupposes flux, and flux presupposes conflict. But lack of conflict is Paradise's essential feature! therefore lack of flux, therefore lack of thinking. Therefore thinking beings will not be possible there. Which is why it was such a stroke of genius on the part of him who said that only the "poor in spirit" will inherit Paradise. Indeed!

249. Immortality is a bogus idea that only seems credible if one has a very primitive understanding of time. More specifically, if one thinks of time as an idealized dimension that exists apart from all the rest. But we know today that time and space are inextricably bound up, so to extend oneself infinitely in time would also mean to do the same in space, i.e. to crowd out all other lifeforms and destroy them, until the only lifeform, indeed the only thing (since all things are alive) left in the entire universe would be oneself! — "And why would this not be possible for someone like an Overman?", would at this point be a fair question. — Because "no player can be greater than the game itself" (Rollerball). Because "absolute power" is a contradictio in adjecto. Because The Intelligence of Evil wouldn't let him. Because "nothing has existence in itself, nothing exists except in dual, antagonistic exchange" (Baudrillard). Take your pick. All these expressions, and many more besides, state the same thing: the fundamental rule of the game. That there must be an opponent.

248. That no one apart from philosophers is really capable of understanding philosophy can be seen by considering how they teach it at the universities. Being unable to sort out what is right from wrong, they simply teach everything. Now imagine how things would fare with any of the sciences if they followed the same prescription, and the state of modern philosophy — and the public's utter disdain and ridicule of it — should not be that hard to understand and sympathize with.

247. The world of the intellect can be thought of as a pyramid built out of interconnected parts (the individual ideas). Complex, treacherous and multifaceted at the bottom — the labyrinth —; simpler and more straightforward the higher up you go. And at the top, quite naturally, there's nothing.

246. The "genetic lottery". As if any luck at all had been involved in all the sacrifices that a superior line has made. The aristocrats thought the opposite way, and luck was furthest from their minds when cold-bloodedly calculating the decisions that would shape the fortunes of their families. For them, it was all about breeding. "If you come from a good family you will be good, and seen clearly all good people come from good families" — this is what every last one of them believed in. Those who beg to differ and love pointing out exceptions (as if they disproved the rule) look only at an individual and his parents, myopically, as subhumans generally do. But take stock of the history of thirty generations, and it's all there. No room for "luck" there — it is not due to luck that humans run the planet today instead of porcupines, and if a porcupine says to itself "it was only due to bad luck that I wasn't born human", the humans can do no more than shake their heads and laugh at the porcupines' hilarious understanding of evolutionary biology.

245. In this sea of opinions most individuals seek for a rock to cling on to, while others are the rocks.

244. Why does James Bond never fail with women? (at least in the movies; he fails once or twice in the books, because the women are lesbians lol). A rash answer would be because that's what the artist glorifies: the ability to easily get women. But the artist also glorifies danger and action, and Bond regularly gets the shit kicked out of him and fails. He ultimately always succeeds, of course, but only after two hours of constant struggle and setbacks. And yet with women he succeeds almost immediately, without even trying, because what the artist is trying to say to you is, "Women sure are great, but ultimately unimportant. They are to be used and discarded like so many gadgets. The only things that are important, and consequently worth fighting for, are country, danger... and play."

243. "Capital exploits me" means "I want to take from others without giving back", otherwise known as "the philosophy of gimme, gimme, gimme".

242. The meaning of rape, in our own species as well as in all others, is that the child is more important than the mother. And thus it is at last that even rape comes to receive God's sanction.

241. There's always a single concept to be found at the bottom of every philosopher's philosophy. With Heraclitus it's flux, with Schopenhauer will, with Stirner the ego, with Kierkegaard faith, with Nietzsche power, while with Baudrillard it's seduction and with me immersion. But what is the quest for power if not the way in which the immersed ego maximizes its influence in the flux by having faith in itself while following its seduced will? And I could easily add Plato's forms, Spinoza's Nature, Hegel's spirit, and all the rest. Hell, even Wittgenstein's silence (via way, perhaps, of Shakespeare) will have a place in my elaboration of the ultimate form of thinking by the time I am done. My masterstroke will be the inclusion of even all the abortive half-concepts and pseudo-concepts floating around in the swamp of the subhuman brain — they too will have a place in the grand scheme of things (though as befits the ideas of small, tiny creatures, theirs will naturally be a very small, very tiny place) — and all the rest, beyond that point, will be silence.

240. They don't think, therefore they don't exist.

239. True progress, in every single field, comes slowly. All good things — which is to say all genuine competence — from the most physical to the most spiritual, come slowly. The speed and suddenness with which money can come and go proves that it is something of little account and, when lost, easily replaceable.

238. The glaring problem in Kierkegaard's philosophy, aside from its religious trappings, is its reliance on the leap of faith. There can be no "leaps" in the flux; all processes are continuous, and strength is accumulated little by little, step by step. "Leaps" are like miracles: the desire to get something out of nothing (i.e. without having to exert yourself). Desiring a LEAP is merely a symptom of being incapable of taking the next STEP.

237. No democracy has ever been created out of love: out of love one creates kingdoms and empires. The inaugural act of despotism is to raise up (by creating the higher caste), that of democracy to pull down (by destroying it).

236. A bunch of scruffy ruffians shouting incoherent slogans in the street is all it takes to get democratic politicians to modify their policies. Proof they don't really believe in them since they can't even be bothered to defend them. Meanwhile, dictators have actual backbone and behave far more admirably. Say what you will about them, but they at least are willing to fight for their beliefs, and to even kill or to be killed for them, if needed.

235. The most important thing in judging the grammatical validity of a sentence is how it sounds. If it doesn't SOUND good, it's wrong, even if all the grammarians in the world can find no fault with it. If it does sound good, on the other hand, a good writer will use it no matter what the grammarians might say, and they will have to modify their grammar afterwards to account for how he used it. Speaking comes first, even historically, and grammar much later, not the other way around, as Chomsky and his followers still seem unable to understand. Woe to the race of beings who waited for grammarians to invent a language before they began to talk! Woe to the child who must learn their rules before being allowed to open its mouth and say "mommy"! Language is a living thing, and what the Chomskyans are busy "analyzing" is so unreal it's not even dead. Theory comes AFTER action, not the other way around, and a priori knowledge of the kind which all philosophers (aside from our lord and master) have been hitherto fond of is no concept that can be grasped at all but a contradictio in adjecto.

234. "Do you think people deserve a second chance?" — No, because there's no "second", no repetition; what comes next is always a new thing — and that's a good thing.

233. Either you are interested in the work, in which case money is irrelevant, or you are interested in money, in which case the work is irrelevant. There is no middle ground here.

232. Bacon versus Descartes. Descartes wants "absolute knowledge" — meaning absolute power — and that immediately. Bacon doubts the possibility of absolute knowledge, and settles for its gradual increase. And we all know who won by now, I hope?

231. Schopenhauer: "The wise have always said the same things, and fools, who are the majority, have always done just the opposite."

230. "Everything is subjective" means that everything can be perceived from a variety of perspectives — indeed an infinity of them — it doesn't mean that all perspectives are equal. From the plurality of subjects it by no means follows that all subjects are equal! But that is precisely what the subhumans contend. With a terrifying consistency they take the idea from the philosophers and utterly pervert it, until it comes to mean the exact opposite to what it meant at first. For if all viewpoints were indeed equal they would have to be identical! i.e. there would not be an infinity of viewpoints but only a single one! i.e. there would not be subjectivity! Subhumans: Standing Every Human Idea On Its Head Since The Invention Of Speech.

229. It's always a bright and sunny day on planet earth, it's just a question of having enough elevation.

228. The obsessive hatred, bordering on psychosis, against products — i.e. against man-made objects — seems to be the hallmark of the pseudo-intellectual today. Hatred of consumption, a problem which no sane, healthy person has ever had. As if food and clothes, as if eating or dressing were bad. Such is the pseudo-intellectual's craving to appear to be raging at something, that he will rage at life's basic necessities if need be.

227. Philosophical books are the ultimate kind of self-help books, but philosophy is not for the kind of people who read self-help books.

226. The scientists' greatest goal would be "to create life". But if you give me a girl and nine months I can create life for you right now, without science's help. Therefore either the scientists are morons who've no idea what they are talking about, or what they are actually trying to create is far more complex and advanced than mere "life".

225. When all you want to do is survive, you goal is life (your life is your goal). When you want to dominate, your goal includes your life. Life in this case becomes merely another tool, another pawn to be thrown in the game at the appropriate time. Only the latter approach can achieve something. To merely remain alive is not much of an achievement, even insects can manage that just fine.

224. Deleuze's "pluralism" is merely another name for perspectivism. He calls perspectivism "philosophy's greatest achievement". I.e. the hypothesis that others exist, that the philosopher is not alone, is philosophy's greatest achievement. Why is that? Because it is in this realization that the best way to manipulate the flux, i.e. "the others", lies. If you don't even believe that anyone else besides you exists (solipsists belong here) you can't very well manipulate them now can you! And believing that others exist means believing other viewpoints exist, i.e. viewpoints different from your own. The best way to increase your power, in other words, lies first of all in recognizing the same desire and capacity in others. But recognizing the existence and the will of the Other is not the same as submitting to it — which is what the subhumans are conflating with their false interpretation of the concept of pluralism — which they borrowed from the philosophers, and afterwards perverted.

223. And how can there be racism if there are no races?

222. A decent article, at last, by The Economist, arguing that affirmative action is a bad thing. What they are essentially saying is that anti-racism is racist, but they are too dumb to grasp this, and too timid to say it even if they did somehow manage to grasp it. So you get hilarious flip-flopping that goes from, on the one hand claiming that "certain groups have suffered great injustices", while on the other coming to the conclusion that the best thing to do about it is nothing lol. And that is indeed the best thing to do, because revenge ("repairing the injustices!") is at best a highly inefficient and ultimately downright counterproductive way to improve your lot, which is precisely the insight expressed in the well-known adage that "the best revenge is living well" (which is to say the best revenge is no revenge at all).

221. Hawking wants to "know the mind of God". But can a worm know YOUR mind? Even if you outright TOLD it what's in it, what would the worm understand? To know the mind of God you must be God! You must have, in other words, the right hardware. It is idiotic to talk about software when the hardware that can run it is lacking.

220. It is customary to bewail the condition of one who has "nothing left to live for". Personally, I find far more tragic the fate of him who has nothing left for which to die.

219. "God sent us this difficulty to test us." And the subhumans aren't wrong. Considering how weak they are, and how by "God" they essentially mean "the rest of the universe", it is indeed the rest of the universe which "sent" them whatever they say was sent to them since it's stronger and takes the initiative, and it tests them for the same reason.

218. Placing yourself at risk is living, the rest is television.

217. The "Arab Spring". Proof of how stupid the Arabs are that they do not take offense at such a flagrant insult. They even use the term themselves. "Your whole history has been a bleak winter, and it is only when you deny your entire past and accept our decadent values that your spring can finally begin."

216. A: "At the end of the day, it's merely a theory." B: "But quantum mechanics is also 'merely a theory' and we make lazors with it."
   O subhumans! There's no higher thing ever accomplished by a human being than theory! What a mistake it was that my ancestors tried to teach you how to speak! You'd still be living in your caves without us and our "mere theories"!

215. Is the pen really mightier than the sword? Lichtenberg says the opposite ("A handful of soldiers is always better than a mouthful of arguments"), and then seems to change his mind again ("With a pen in my hand I have successfully stormed bulwarks from which others armed with swords have been repulsed"). The truth is that the two have different functions. They are not at odds, but rather complementary. The purpose of the pen is to put the swords in motion, and the purpose of the swords is to clear enough space so that the pen can have some peace and quiet to do its work. It's not an either/or situation; for best results you need both working together in harmony. Conversely, writings that don't lead to action (i.e. the pseudo-intellectuals') are worthless, and actions whose results are not evaluated by thought (i.e. those of the "practical men", the "pragmatists", and other Anglo-Saxons) end up shortsighted, misdirected and doomed to ultimate failure.

214. I can't think of a greater tragedy than to not be able to achieve, or at any rate at least to aim, for anything more. But that's precisely the one thing that's impossible in this game, and all its other rules are mere ramifications of this one. Baudrillard called it "The Intelligence of Evil", Reversibility, or simply Evil. Excuse me, master, but I can't think of a more apt name with which to baptize this state of affairs than Paradise.

213. There's no more flagrant demonstration of the ressentiment of the liberals than their obvious view of the entire past, not only man's, but all of nature's, as a mistake. Wars, conquerors, hierarchies, and even masculinity itself were all bad and evil, including all other animals (the jungle), and even the stars themselves for having the temerity to explode (it goes against "conservation" and respect for the environment) — never mind that without wars and hierarchies there'd be no civilization any more than without exploding stars there would be life. "The basest creature will see the domain of evil everywhere" (Nietzsche). Conversely, the highest creature would see no evil at all. The concept of evil would seem to it to be something ridiculous and absurd.

212. To "unravel the mysteries of the universe" means: "to become the lifeform that ravels them".

211. The worst place for ressentiment is on the internet. It's absolutely raging. Why? The intensified communication factor. The more you learn of those above you, the more it hurts. A man alone in a cave in the middle of nowhere would have no ressentiment — not the mental kind at any rate. Which goes to show why hermits of all ages chose to withdraw from worldly affairs and live in isolation.

210. Alzheimer's convention in Love and Other Drugs. See how happy the convention makes her? "Life is beautiful", etc. If the entire species had Alzheimer's no one would be sad. I.e., their sadness is ressentiment. There's nothing wrong with Alzheimer's per se anymore than there is about us not being able to breathe underwater. It's just that very few people have it, and that's what makes them sad. But "misery loves company" is ressentiment. Real happiness does not require company. Indeed, at the highest levels it exists in near-complete solitude.

209. Women, at least, have their priorities straight. No other creature in the land worships power as well as they do.

208. Wittgenstein basically wanted to shut up all talk of spirituality. This desire was at the heart of his involvement with philosophy. "Think what you want, but at least shut up about it and spare the rest of us of your asinine claptrap." No wonder he became the poster child of the spiritually barren Anglo-Saxons. But Baudrillard doesn't mention him even once.

207. One doesn't fight weaker creatures, one brushes them aside.

206. Mistakes of the subhumans. They immediately interpret the idea of subjectivity as giving them free reign to support any viewpoint that they want, no matter how incoherent, ignorant and wretched. Sure, the ant too has its own perspective of things, and therefore its own subjective reality, but who gives a shit about the reality of an ant? The greater the man the greater — and hence the more objective — his perspective, and therefore the idea of subjectivity does not undermine the absolute rule of inequality in the universe but is precisely the mechanism by which it comes about.

205. In a society of slaves the only type of noble man remaining is the criminal.

204. To govern is to control. The greater government therefore will be the one that controls more. It really is as simple as that and there is not the slightest room for doubt here. To object merely means to have not understood the definition of the word. That a particular government may decide that in a particular area it may be beneficient to allow its subjects some degree of freedom is not an objection to this proposition, since to ALLOW freedom in some area is also an aspect of control. A government, on the other hand, which has powers TAKEN AWAY FROM IT, is a weak, and therefore bad government. It makes all the difference in the world if the decision for the degree of freedom to be allowed is taken from government HQ or from the rabble.

203. True democracy has the same endgame as true anarchy: the end of control, which is to say of government. At which point we arrive once more, not at equality, but in the jungle, which is to say the very starting point of a new autocracy.

202. The subhuman is neither pessimist, nor idealist, nor nihilist, nor any other -ist. Plato was idealist. The subhuman is merely subhuman. That is to say he misinterpretes and misuses and abuses every term, but the only reality you'll find at the bottom of all his sayings and all his doings is no idea or ideology, but his extreme vulgarity.

201. It is precisely because complaining pays, in every sense of the word, that it has become so popular. In the jungle there's no complaining precisely because no one pays attention to it. Our tendency to reward complaining has created more complainers. If we started punishing it instead, we'd end up with far less.

200. "Life's not fair" means: "I don't like myself" — and nothing more than that.

199. Orwell disliked military parades, but even the worst of those seem like artistic masterpieces (as Leni Riefenstahl showed, to the eternal chagrin of the pseudo-intellectuals) compared to the sheer ugliness of a demonstrating mob. Demonstrations should be banned, if for no other reason, on purely aesthetic grounds. But there are other reasons too. The demonstrators are not brave enough to pick up weapons, nor intelligent enough to write down their complaints. If I were president I'd promise to read an essay written by the demonstrators' leaders. But to ACT on it? That decision would remain mine. What else did you elect me for? This is democracy: The 51 percent calls the shots and the president goes with them otherwise he doesn't get reelected. To care for the 49 percent who didn't vote for him is not only stupid, but anti-democratic: a betrayal of his constituents (and constituents too stupid to realize when they have been betrayed). NO DEMONSTRATOR HAS EVER HAD GROUNDS ON WHICH TO COMPLAIN. I will repeat it: demonstrations are anti-democratic; a vocal minority bullying the government to overlook and act against the wishes of the civilized majority (which has already expressed its wishes THROUGH THE BALLOT). It should be written into every constitution: demonstrations are illegal. Not to speak of throwing rocks at police officers. Merely to call them names is reason enough for prison time; any kind of assault on them for a death sentence handed down on the spot, Judge Dredd-style. Now that'd be cutting-edge democracy at work: the democracy of the future.

198. The "consumer society" should have been called the "slave society", since there's nothing wrong with consuming, it is indeed the basis, the prerequisite, of all growth. Marx was at least healthy in focusing on production; Baudrillard's obsession with consumption is neurotic. Why not reduce it to zero and die of thirst in a few days, you fucking nihilistic little prick? Better yet just stop breathing; oxygen too is something that we consume.

197. The only genuinely interesting thing on the internet, ultimately, is theory.

196. The beggar doesn't beg because he has no other choice — would he beg in the jungle? who would he beg? — he begs because YOU are around. It's a form of attack. He takes your highly developed sense of empathy and uses it against you. If the lifeforms around him were not so highly empathetic, he'd look for other ways of sustaining himself. The beggar then is feeding off your empathy, a strategy which even a starving jungle rat has too much self-respect to employ — he'd never stoop so low. And it's hypocritical to say that you pity beggars, since you create them by your actions. Wealth is a relative concept, after all. Hate seeing poor people? Then stop being rich. Stop "doing well". Better yet, just kill yourself — and make all the beggars happy.

195. A newspaper's front page, full of insipid, wretched perspectives, or shallow celebrity spectacles and manufactured non-events — while the true triumphs of mankind (which at the highest levels are all intellectual) go utterly unnoticed and unpraised.

194. What is ultimately to be done about death, misfortune, etc.? A hypocritical question, since all your happiness has come from the unhappiness of others. You don't really care about what can be done about "death", "misfortune", etc., but only about YOUR death, YOUR misfortune, etc.; and whatever can indeed be done about them necessarily results in the increase of the death and the misfortune of countless others. So the answer to their question is "Go screw yourself you hypocritical subhuman scum", and what can be done about it is to stick a loaded gun to their fucking heads and pull the fucking trigger.

193. How unfathomably degenerate the subhuman is can be seen from the fact that in order to help him catch a whiff of the true constitution of reality, you must instruct him to do such an utterly idiotic thing as to stop eating.

192. "Power corrupts." Actually, weakness corrupts, power makes healthy. If you don't believe me just stop eating (food too is a form of power) and then take a look in the mirror after a week. That's what corruption looks like. Puffy cheeks and a well-stocked cellar are health.

191. The neg does indeed work, at least in the short term. But as a long term strategy it's a terrible idea: obsessing about taking value away from others instead of bestowing it on them! As one of the more perceptive PUAs put it, "What are you going do, once she's your girlfriend, neg her every morning before getting out of bed?" Instead of spending your time lowering other people's value you should be building up your own. The truth of it can be seen by observing the highest-value men (or at least the kind of men which women regard as having the highest value — which, though there is overlap, is not quite the same thing) — celebrities of all kinds — who never need to neg: indeed, they never need to use any PUA tactic whatever (or who can even use the opposite of every tactic PUAs advocate and still get the girl, which proves that PUA tactics are ultimately only of value when used as smokescreens by low-value men). The highest value men do not need to spend a second thinking about women, since women naturally flock to them. They only spend time thinking about how to deal with other men — which, my dear PUAs, you should have realized by now, is where the real game's at.

190. The entire evolutionary strategy of the subhuman is, quite literally, to bamboozle you with sound waves. Until you don't know which way is up. Until black is white and white is black. Until you'll gladly bend over and let him fuck you up the ass (it's called "redistribution"). Previous lifeforms used their limbs to get what they wanted; the subhuman can get by with just his mouth.

189. The seriousness with which the slaves regard the scenario of the assassination of their presidents would be hilarious if it weren't tragic, for it is precisely their presidents' complete and utter uselessness which would make such an eventuality a perfect non-event. To assassinate Hitler would be to assassinate the Third Reich, and so it has always been with leaders, who have always been unique and simply irreplaceable — but just ask yourselves what exactly would change if any given subhuman "leader" were assassinated today. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. For it is precisely the secret ultimate goal of the democratic movement to create a society that functions without a leader, ideally without leadership at all.

188. You are never closer to someone, than when you are fucking or killing them.

187. Economist article on scientists trying to comprehend what is the use of religions. Tiny little men who hop around with calculators, trying to figure everything out with them. Zarathustra's last men, utterly barren spiritually, an alien race right out of a bad science fiction novel, no connection with humanity whatsoever. On the one side you've got women and fags with new-age pseudo-spirituality babble, on the other religious fanatics with millenia-old ridiculous beliefs, and on the other the microscientific flatheads and cabbage-heads who view belief as an equation to be solved and the entire past as an error. We are paying dearly for the failure of philosophers to take control of the masses and legislate education. The philosopher-king has been lacking ever since Plato imagined him. Why? But consider the requirements. He is an almost impossible being. A man with the body of Alexander and Nietzsche's brain. The Overman. Our God.

186. Baudrillard: "The world is not what we think, it is what thinks us in return" — gigantic, unforgivable mistakes until the very last moments of his life. For it is obvious that the world is what we think AND what thinks us in return TAKEN TOGETHER. The world is everything! How hard can that be to understand? But Baudrillard, like all the French, was never averse to sacrificing logic for the sake of a good soundbite, and like the rest of them he paid the price, which was to have his books riddled with nonsense. So his formulation sounds cooler than mine, I'll give him that much, only there's this little problem with it — that his formulation's STUPID. But all that needs to be said on the differences between me and him has already been said in The Gay Science §82.

185. There is no death, only life; and everything is life. What distinguishes the two is not a binary opposition but degrees of power. Power, however, as we've seen, is not something you take but something that you give, and death is the means by which you give it.

184. "True stories" means bad art. It is precisely what's not true in it that makes an artwork art.

183. All the hatred against the NSA is contemptible; I would be proud if my country had an intelligence agency as cool as the NSA. After all, what else is an intelligence agency supposed to do than gather information? Everyone does it, and you little maggots are outraged by the Americans because they are doing it better than everyone else. As for your privacy, no one gives a shit about it. You think we WANT to read about the inane ant-like existence that you call your life? Your correspondence makes us DEPRESSED. The only reason we are gathering it is because it's the best way to achieve our objective — not to protect you! but the interests of the nation! And YES, WE are the ones who determine the interests of the nation because we work for the NSA and you, fuckface, do not and never will (because you are a fuckface). Get it?

182. Sigmund Freud once wrote that, "All energy is sexual". So before the evolution of sexuation a billion years ago there was no energy in the universe. Smart man. But that's what happens when the only thing on your mind all day is dildos.

181. The utter seriousness with which the entire Hollywood elite (actors, directors, screenwriters) takes on comic book projects. The best artists in the world, and yet no shame in breathing life into "puerile power fantasies". Nowhere else in the world would this have been possible, because no one else is as serious about art today as the Americans.

180. I like machines as much as I like nature, if not more. This means: I like man-made things as much as I like non-man-made things. To say: "I don't like machines, I only like nature", would mean "I don't like man-made things, only non-man-made ones", which would be as much as saying "I don't like men", i.e. I am not a man — or at least not a very good one. TO NOT LIKE MACHINES MEANS TO NOT BE HUMAN. IT IS PRECISELY OUR CAPACITY TO MAKE MACHINES THAT MAKES US HUMAN. To be shouted at the ears of every luddite.

179. "Do not hate us for our happiness" says the prince to Hippolite in The Idiot. But "Hate us for our happiness" would have been a higher thing to say.

178. Contradictions of the liberal scum: So and so (beauty, for example) is "merely" a social construct — while at the same time extolling social values as higher than individual ones. Slave morality is always self-contradictory, and the time has come for us to understand exactly why.

177. And what does it say about a society that it expects social change to come from children? The only way that children would ever be allowed a say in a society is if there were no more men in it. Which is why the impact of students on the political stage before the twentieth century was exactly nil, whereas everyone today looks in precisely their direction when dreaming of "social change".

176. And why is it that students (i.e. children) always start leftist revolutionary movements, whereas army generals (i.e. men) always start fascist coups? What does that say about the respective systems of beliefs that motivate them?

175. It wasn't Lenin or Mao who were hungry, but the hundreds of thousands of peasants whom they indoctrinated. In Western societies there simply no longer exist enough hungry men to launch a revolution and, as long as democracy is functioning properly, there never will be. For this is indeed the hidden biological purpose of democracy: to keep the machine running, even on auto-pilot, when there no longer exists any individual or group of individuals capable of taking control. The auto-pilot is always less trustworthy than a good pilot — especially in rough times — but in the latter's absence it is preferable to the complete disintegration of the machine (anarchism).

174. All leftist revolutionary movements led by students in the twentieth century were children playing politics, to be distinguished from what happened in places such as Russia and China which were men playing politics. The politics in both cases were ressentiment politics, but the difference was that the coddled Western kids went nowhere (because they were coddled — "one must need strength in order to have strength"), whereas the Russians and the Chinese succeeded because they were genuinely hungry. The Red Brigades kidnapped a few people. The Baader-Meinhof Gang shot up a few banks. But Lenin and Mao massacred millions — and that's why they succeeded. Nothing has ever come out of student-led movements, and nothing ever will. The very fact of being a student — of having enough time to concern yourself with knowledge — means you don't even know what hunger is, you have not the faintest idea of the concept. Consequently all student-led political movements should be automatically laughed at. Baudrillard's elation at the sight of May '68 was pathetic, but at least he eventually grew out of it. To pay any serious attention to what students are saying or doing today is retarded.

173. Why the instinctive support of the underdog may be a noble, bad ultimately a bad idea. If planet Earth were all there was to the universe, this attitude would have been fine (indeed it'd be essential to the continuation of the game), but what if our species is an underdog in the greater scheme of things? Then all your efforts are against us. Condemning American militarism and "imperialism" is stupid but excusable, perhaps, when there are no external threats, but who would you turn to for protection if the aliens were to arrive today, the Swiss?

172. The feminine feelings being idealized and glorified in Twilight are wonderful, because perfectly complementary to the male.

171. I by no means intend to deny the subhumans their philosophy, I merely want to understand it, so as to finally place it within mine, as they have placed me and mine within theirs. Within my philosophy they are and always will be subhuman, within theirs I am... perhaps "evil".

170. A calculation is just another kind of guess. Which is to say, if it's a good one, an educated one.

169. The ultimate insult: a woman calling you a fag, as Alex Forrest does to Michael Douglas's character in Fatal Attraction. The complete contempt in which a woman holds anything unmanly shows up the falsity of both the feminists' pretensions, and the homosexuals' abjectness. For there is, of course, no more staunch proponent of manliness than woman, just as there is no greater lover of femininity than man.

168. The biggest threat today to Western civilization is... faggotry. It's bad enough that half of the population is women — and they are all allowed to vote now — if you add in the effeminate males, trannies, bona fide fags and the elderly, the actual manly count is negligible — and no man actually VOTES.

167. Or: you can kill some people (the combatants), but not others (the non-combatants). But isn't this discrimination? Aren't people supposed to be equal? So why can't I just kill and rape whomever I want?

166. Or "war crimes". It's okay to kill someone but not rape them. Subhuman logic.

165. Not to speak of "war conventions". For war is obviously THE BREAKDOWN OF CONVENTIONS; a war played out according to rules and regulations would not be a war at all but merely another game. The slaves' desire to turn every aspect of life into routine culminates with this insane attempt of theirs to turn even war into a game.

164. The phraseology of liberal propaganda betrays an astonishing level of naiveté. E.g., "The American government is murdering, etc. etc." — it is called WAR you fucking faggots, people are SUPPOSED to die in it. The first who should be murdered is whoever is incapable of grasping this simple fact. Whoever complains about war being murder should be murdered.

163. Ad hominems. Subhumans attack character first and never deal with arguments. We humans attack arguments first and character last, because each argument must finally be shown to have come from the corresponding type of character. Character and arguments are not unrelated, as the subhumans think. Shitty lifeforms have shitty arguments. And subhumans have none (because they are the shittiest lifeforms ever).

162. The only thing more annoying than people's Twitter accounts are dead links to deleted Twitter accounts. How ironic that by wisening up they create even more annoyance than when they were just being stupid.

161. I've no idea what it's like to scribble rubbish that will be instantly forgotten; how could I hope to ever truly understand anyone else? And how could they hope to understand someone whose every word, the moment he has set it down, becomes immortal.

160. Reading journalism is not reading, it is deferring to read. The only good thing that can come out of reading journalism is to realize how bad for you reading journalism is.

159. The relationship between necessity and desire mirrors that between determinism and free will. The best move (and indeed every move) is necessary when regarded at the level of the universe, but from the perspective of the individual who'll perform it (and from those of all his allies and adversaries who are going to feel its effects) it's not necessary at all, but merely what he has chosen and wants to do.

158. Favorite books. People need to distinguish between novels (i.e. artistic books) and proper books. If your favorite book is a novel you are an idiot.

157. A low blow is something unbecoming and distasteful, especially to a tall man. But when you are fighting short people — there's no way around it — you have to hit low.

156. "Freedom this", "freedom that" and then they wonder about universal pornography and the proliferation of all perversions. "Society is decaying" — it isn't really, but what decadence there is in it is, for the most part, all your fault. And even that is giving you too much credit; you are not the cause of decadence but merely its expression. The cause of it, and indeed the cause of everything, is us.

155. A cook, a swimmer, a banker. A person that can be characterized by a single activity — especially if he's any good at it — is Zarathustra's inverse cripple. One exception, a philosopher, precisely because philosophy is not an activity in its own right but the sum of all others.

154. All training, physical and mental, is a gamble, a risk, is dangerous. Aim for more than you have in you, and you'll be broken. Aim for less, and you are wasting your time. Universal education is consequently a great error, and most people would have been better off if no one had ever tried to teach them anything.

153. Chris McCandless living in a bus, the "Grizzly Man" being eaten by his bears, the other dude sawing off his own arm with a pocketknife. Complete evolutionary failures. Incapable of operating so much as a coffee machine, they go into "the wild" (as if there were anything wilder than life on the edge in the big cities) and die by stumbling over the first rock they come across. Utter retards. Precisely because they can't cope with life in civilization they aren't even any good as slaves. They should "win" a trip to a Hunger Games/The Island-type space where they can be quietly and surreptitiously exterminated. Even for them it will be more fun than starving to death in an abandoned bus.

152. "The Life after Death Project" may as well have been called "The Contradictio in Adjecto Project". And that's about where I stopped watching.

151. The object is not something non-living, but simply everything that lies outside the subject. Only with this realization does "knowledge" (and eventually science...) begin, and it culminates when the subject comes to regard even itself as object ("I am my own simulacrum").

150. The Euros have no idea how to make a decent movie: just look at British films. No pacing, no excitement, no flow, nothing. And the ugliness, oh my god the ugliness. Not the faintest clue that your protagonists should be better looking than your fucking neighbors, at the very least. Why go to the movies then? To see ugly people? All I have to do is take the bus. Wake up you fucking eurotrash! movies are supposed to be exciting! "If I want a long boring story with no point to it I have my life." (Seinfeld)

149. A few more years and we'll be growing babies in labs. The usefulness of sexuality will soon be over — which is why it is precisely now that it has become a "game".

148. Not "knowing what you want", at ANY stage of life, is pathetic. Only children can get away with not knowing what they want (because they don't know anything). No wonder women look down on men who don't know what they want. (And no wonder PUAs always pretend to women to know exactly what they want.)

147. Prometheus. It is supposed to contain all these "deep philosophical questions" whereas in fact it contains nothing but a couple of childish, outdated non-questions such as "where do we come from?", and do you "believe in God?" — questions that have nothing to do with modern, twenty-first century philosophy. Where do we come from? — there's not the slightest doubt about that: we come from apes who come from primates who come from single-cellular organisms, all the way back to the Big Bang. As for whether we come from "elsewhere", EVERYTHING comes from elsewhere at some point, so there's no mystery there. Even if something "greater" made us, that greater thing was made by combining smaller things, and so on and so forth. Subhumans have no interest in "deep philosophical questions" but merely in seeing action charades on a big screen, and the entire "did other lifeforms make us?" question has nothing philosophic about it but is merely a pretext, a setup, for a battle of us against yet another alien race. Nothing wrong with that — it's great entertainment — but to take it as a "deep philosophical question" is ludicrous. Same with the retarded questions about "belief in God", and any other such grossly outdated shit, which are anyway handled hamfistedly and awkwardly by the script. Prometheus is a good film, but it has nothing to do with philosophy for christsake — at least not any more than any other film. In short, "deep philosophical questions" are only asked — and answered — in philosophical works, duh, and if you still expect show business people or novelists or journalists or clowns or gypsies or priests or politicians, or your fucking aunt Bertha, to pose, much less answer them, you need to have YOUR FUCKING DNA CHECKED.

146. Science fiction vs. fantasy. Fantasy is an attempt to freeze the past, to turn the ancients' understanding of the universe into art's reality, a nostalgic dream fueled by a distaste for and rejection of science. Hence fantasy inferior to science fiction, which celebrates and glorifies science. Hence why philosophical questions are so generally lacking in fantasy, whilst science fiction's rife with them.

145. From the narrow, restricted viewpoint of the present, you always have infinite choices (= free will), because choice is a mental process we use to imagine and decide upon possible courses of action, and hence can make as many of them as we want — whereas at the level of the universe you only have a single one: the one you'll end up making (= determinism), because the concept universe includes the concept time. Thus does the Overman solve, in a single sentence, problems that have frustrated mankind's greatest thinkers for millennia.

144. The entire tragedy of slave life can be summarized in a single word: "retirement". But for the free man retirement from his goals is not something desirable but something that must be forced on him, and over his dead body no less. To take away from him his "work" one would be obliged to kill him.

143. David versus Goliath. But Goliath lost! He who loses, however, is weak — there's no question about that; that's what weakness is: whatever loses. It therefore follows that the "evil" one in that story is not the one most commonly thought of as such.

142. Politicians, and especially the better, more successful ones, are beings of pure appearance. It's no use trying to discover what they "really" think: they don't think — that's what pure appearance means; thinking is depth. That's why their books are so boring and useless, and why, years after retiring, when nothing is at stake any more, they can still be seen fervently defending their various "stances" on all these little non-issues that "defined" their careers, which no one even cares about anymore because nothing was really at stake in them in the first place. Not one of them ever lets the mask drop and starts going, "Hahaha, I've been fooling all of you all these years! I never believed a thing I said!", for they in fact "believed" in everything — i.e. they believed that by saying these things they were maximizing their vote potential, and never spent a second more thinking about them (for on top of lacking the intelligence and education, they had neither the time nor the energy to do so; democratic politics are exhausting). Finally, the mask became them, and they will defend every last one of the sheer idiocies they spouted through it to their graves. The only thing that matters, that has ever mattered in their lives, is influence, "power" — i.e., the routine administrative function of the slave society which they have mistaken for power — which is why it is perfectly correct and proper to compare and judge them by it — if one can be bothered with them long enough to judge them at all, that is.

141. No argument has yet convinced anyone who didn't want to be convinced. People are people and arguments aren't magic.

140. Susan Sontag's "Against Interpretation" does not mean against interpretation in the strict philosophical sense that a human would use it. In that sense, "against interpretation" would mean "against life", since all life is interpretation. It just means "against all those long exegeses which I don't understand and sound like bullshit". And in that sense, it makes perfect sense. Not that Sontag could grasp this.

139. Police work: for all the (sometimes admittedly justified) claims to bravery, danger, etc., police work is actually the opposite of that. A huge apparatus of repression erected by the herd instinct, but operated and indulged in by cruel cowards. The anarchists, by the way, are wrong on all counts. If cops are pigs the anarchists are the pig masters (for it is only in a society pacified through merciless police work that the anarchist can even exist at all). — High above both of them towers the soldier. A chain of command, hierarchy, the sanctity of orders. Belief in an order of rank, reverence for a leader; with death not anathema, as with anarchists, or an accident or anomaly, as with cops, but part of the job description.

138. (By the way, it is totally natural that women, by and large, are horrified by children's deaths. What is not natural is that men have been feminized to a degree that they effectively feel the same way, and that they have allowed women's narrowmindedness, which in itself, and for the purpose for which women have been shaped by evolution, is praiseworthy, to lay hold of the whole of society and tyrannize it with the values of small and petty creatures.)

137. "But how can you think so cruelly about children?" Listen up here, sister: Children will die, no matter what you do. Children have always died, and they always will die. That is how the world works. Because if children did not die, and there was some magical kind of effect whereby homo sapiens under the age of 18 were invulnerable and invincible, the world would not be so immersive, and those children would think themselves gods. Not to mention what would happen if a bunch of these invincible children decided to attack, say, the US's nuclear installations as a prank, to see what happens "when you press all those red buttons". So it's a good thing that young homo sapiens are not invincible, and a direct consequence of this is that they can, and often do, die. Let us therefore, for once, be glad that children die! Let us thank the gods that we live in a universe where children are not invulnerable! For God help us if they were...

136. Dude mows down 69 "Norwegian" schoolchildren with a machine gun; how to intepret this event? The subhumans start wailing, etc. etc., and clamp down. Their chief question: "How is such an evil act possible, 'in this day and age'?" But it is precisely in this day and age that such an act is possible, since machine guns did not exist before. The subhumans' incredulity at such an event is therefore a result of their low culture, and in particular their complete and utter lack of historical knowledge, as if sudden, brutal, mad events like this had never occurred before. But a little study would reveal that they have always occurred, not only throughout recorded history, and in all the cultures, but with the lower animals as well (the lioness eating her young, for instance, is an even more outrageous event than this, since the shooter was not the father of any of the children). So basically, "evil" acts like these are not new phenomena, but the norm throughout history; their increased intensity is merely a consequence of the increased power of the means that exist all around us. Just as accidents have always happened, whether it was someone stubbing his toe on a rock or falling off a horse, but the huge plane crashes and train wrecks are a new thing. To desire no accidents, no acts of "madness", etc., is to desire a deterministic, ultimately dead world. — The other thing here is how the event is blown completely out of proportion. With the lioness nothing happens; she eats her young and that is that. No outcry from other lions, no clamping down, etc. With earlier cultures there are no media, so the "mad" event remains circulating among a small circle of acquaintances, is accepted as a fact of life, or at most causes the most superstitious to "pray to their gods" or whatever, and life goes on. In the slave society, on the other hand, there is a thing called "the media", which, for purely selfish reasons (promotion, money, competition between media outlets) lays hold of the event and projects it to the entire planet (the entire "social responsibility" talk is just a ruse; none of them care about it, because if it ever became a reality they'd be out of a job). Then those "in power" are practically and psychologically extorted to act, on the one hand with more rhetoric, which merely intensifies the damage, blowing the event out of even more proportion, and on the other leading to the clampdown. Now the clampdown makes things even worse, since the more they restrict people's freedom of movement, the more there are who are either unable to conform (terrorism of weakness), or are not willing to (terrorism of strength). The rate of these "mad" events may therefore be reduced due to the clampdown, but the strength and explosiveness of those that do occur is increased, with the net result in the older case and the new being equal. — And in fact the Norwegian dude may even be said to have failed compared to his predecessors, since a random killing a few thousand years ago, when the population of the earth was in the millions, was comparatively much greater than 69 in seven billion; if anything, one could even accuse the Norwegian of not slaughtering even more annoying little bastard brats.

135. Writer's block is bullshit. I've been writing for close to a decade now, and have not the faintest notion of the thing; it's merely a euphemism for slaves who want to make a living out of scribbling because they are too lazy to do anything else. If a writer has something to say, it comes out by itself, if he doesn't, then what's the point in WANTING to write? — Money, of course.

134. "God doesn't like sex." HAHAHAHAHAHA. The subhumans have no clue.

133. The Ides of March. Hollywood sticks in half a dozen of its hottest stars in a single movie, and they still can't make democratic politics look exciting. Everyone comes across as a petty scheming idiot — not even worms or scoundrels, just shallow nobodies.

132. Fondue sucks. It's just a pot of disgusting melted cheese in which you dip pieces of stale bread. The only reason subhumans are still eating it is because of all the apparatus on the table that makes them feel like children. Its continued popularity has nothing to do with culinary excellence but with subhuman childishness.

131. "Democratic legitimacy." But there's nothing "legitimate" about it, going by the slaves' own definition of legitimacy. For what "right" does the majority have to rule over, and oppress, the minority? And not only when the difference between the two is a couple of percentage points, as in most modern democracies, but even down to the individual person. What right do the millions have in telling me what to do, and throwing me in jail if I refuse to do it? The same exact right as dictators and monarchs of old: they are more, and therefore stronger. As for being "bound by law", I don't remember signing any contract. No one even bothered to INFORM me that I was bound by law, or even tell me WHAT these laws were. "Democracy": in plain words: the fascism of the majority. This is where their belief in the preeminence of numbers leads: the fascism of the majority is stronger, i.e. more fascistic, than the fascism of the minority (i.e. of the dictators and their cronies). If a "fascist" state lacks "democratic legitimacy", therefore, all this means is that, as far as the slaves are concerned, IT IS NOT FASCISTIC ENOUGH.

130. Was Nietzsche a systematizer? The scholars are divided on the issue. But Nietzsche was suspicious of systematizers, and maintained that "the will to a system is a lack of integrity" — why? Because a system's purpose, at bottom, is to refuse the Other its own viewpoint. A complete and total theory of things would be logically binding for everyone; a form of supression, of opression. Besides which, it would be stupid, since no matter what the systematizer may say, the Other will have its viewpoint regardless. This, then, was Nietzsche's system: that there is no "system" — i.e. no complete and total view of things that could cover the needs of every lifeform in the universe. The subhumans will pop up now and bleat, "See? We were right all along in not paying attention to systems!" They were "right", but for the wrong reasons (i.e. they were wrong): not insight in the truth of the matter, but laziness to study. Three levels here, as elsewhere: on the first, and lower level, the subhumans, who maintain a set of utterly contradictory beliefs, precisely because they themselves are contradictory beings: not bothering at all with being consistent or investigating anything and simply adopting any claim that seems to advance their interests at any given moment. On the second, higher level the pre-Nietzschean thinkers: who, having not yet drawn the ultimate conclusions from perspectivism and the flux, believed that a system could be found, and strove valiantly to find it. And on the third, final level Nietzsche and I (and Heraclitus too, actually, if you know how to read between his long-lost lines), who have elevated consistency to the point of total inconsistency, closing the circle at the high point, and therefore the most powerful.

129. The problem with demonstrations. Contrary to popular belief, nothing great has ever been achieved via demonstration. You don't even learn anything through it (any actually useful skills, etc.) The most you can hope to achieve is the exact same thing everyone else who is demonstrating will, meaning countless others. But to become great you must achieve a great deal MORE than ALL others — not the SAME as them! You must achieve these things, in other words, FOR YOURSELF, and how can that be accomplished by spending all your time marching or whatever? Was Ghandi a great man? But what did he manage to achieve? Which of his practices could a young man adopt today, in order to become a great man? None. Same with the Nazarene. That is how you see that there was nothing great about them — aside from great folly and stupidity, that is.

128. The attitude of modern fathers, who hate the idea of someone fucking their daughters, is loathsome and even obviously perverted. Nothing would give me more pleasure if I had fathered a daughter, especially a beautiful, smart girl, than the knowledge that some man worthy of her was treating her the way a woman should be treated — which would of course include fucking her brains out every now and then. In fact I myself would set about finding her a husband worthy of her, and, having exacted his promise to treat her right, would admonish her to obey her husband and be his loyal and loving companion. To be sure, she would have to be a virgin up to that point — I can well understand fathers who are upset at the idea of half the village idiots banging away at their daughter, not to mention the disgust I would feel towards the daughter that would consent to and desire such a life. I would not bring up the village slut — I'd gut her myself before allowing her to become one.

127. Politicians lie, not because they enjoy it, but quite simply because, if they want to remain politicians, they have no other choice, for the subhuman will not tolerate the truth being so much as alluded to in his presence. Nothing funnier than subhumans decrying politicians' lying, when the man who would utter the simplest of truths — that, for example, no lifeforms are equal — would get zero votes. Subhumans see the entire world upside down, so when they complain that politicians lie what they really mean is that THEY DO NOT LIE NEARLY AS MUCH AS THEY SHOULD (i.e. not well enough so that the subhuman will not figure out he's being lied to). The moral for politicians of the future — and I am a hundred percent behind it — is clear: they have to learn to lie better.

126. Nietzsche on translation. "It is neither the best nor the worst in a book that is untranslatable." Precisely, because the best and worst things are ideas, and ideas can always be rendered in a language. What sometimes can't be rendered are puns, figures of speech, grammatical plays, acoustical tones, the rhythm perhaps, etc., i.e. stylistic elements, which are never the heart of the matter, or shouldn't be if there is to be any.

125. If the subhuman leaders are disgusting, it is because subhumans themselves are disgusting, and have the leaders they deserve. They themselves elected them, and have no one to shift the blame to. "The system is bad!", they cry. Well, you are the ones who made it, assholes. Finally, they make God responsible for everything. And I indeed accept responsibility while laughing my ass off at their utter incapacity to understand why I made everything the way I did.

124. Ultimately, businessmen still operate under the imperialist mindset; they order their stores and personnel and vehicles about in a sort of military fashion: toys, armadas, armies, uniforms, etc. The difference is that the day to day running involves juggling numbers instead of grenades and the crucial moments are boring and contain no threat to life or limb — no physical exertion either. Hence they are fat and slothful; soldiers and generals of a debased kind of war.

123. "I don't care what happens, since I'll be dead by then." Typical subhuman sentiment. They don't care about the future. And it is for this reason that the future will not care about them.

122. When simulation is preferable to reality. E.g. it is sometimes better to masturbate with the idea of a beautiful woman, either using the imagination or some sort of simulacrum, than to have actual sex with an actual woman. Because sexual pleasure is physical and mental, there is a threshold of female ugliness past which the simulacrum is preferable. The same with videogames and war or business — or real life. The aesthetic wretchedness of activities, which may be more demanding physically, accounts for people preferring the simulated, i.e. physically debased, but aesthetically heightened, alternative. Sex with an ugly woman is terrible. Past a certain point it's not even physically possible, since one cannot even get an erection.

121. And just as the weak creature inserts God wherever it feels its weakness, the strong creature inserts itself wherever it feels its strength, and ultimately in itself. To believe so much in oneself as to become one's own religion. And people think that I am an atheist. I am not an atheist, I am God.

120. Savonarola's letter to Alexander VI, on the murder of Alexander's son, the Duke of Gandia. In one sentence he claims that God forgives all sins, and barely a few paragraphs later he is foaming in the mouth at the calamities that God's vengeance will rain upon the sinners. Any attempt here to reconcile these two utterly contradictory claims is silly: Savonarola is merely yielding to sympathy in the beginning, bringing God in to allay Alexander's sorrow; and to hatred in the end, again of Alexander's power, etc. He's no better than a leaf that blows with the wind, the winds here being Savonarola's passions: pity at first, hatred later. Any attempt to communicate with him is futile, like trying to communicate with a cat or something; rather, one interprets his behavior and acts accordingly; above all, one realizes that one is dealing with an extremely frail, weak creature, and therefore doesn't take it seriously. As for God, he is inserted everywhere the weak creature feels its weakness, using God to allay Alexander's sorrow in the same way it uses him to allay its own, and then once again, in the impotence of its rage, to exact the revenge which the creature is unable to exact itself.

119. It is precisely the best drivers who cause the worst accidents. Only the terms should here be reversed, for the paradox is only a result of false terminology. For the most spectacular accidents are by no means the "worst", but precisely the best.

118. Voltaire: "Why in antiquity was there never a theological quarrel, and why were no people ever distinguished by the name of a sect? The Egyptians were not called Isiacs or Osiriacs; the peoples of Syria did not have the name of Cybelians. The Cretans had a particular devotion to Jupiter, and were never entitled Jupiterians. The ancient Latins were very attached to Saturn; there was not a village in Latium called Saturnian: on the contrary, the disciples of the God of truth taking their master's title, and calling themselves "anointed" like Him, declared, as soon as they could, an eternal war on all the peoples who were not anointed, and made war among themselves for fourteen hundred years, taking the names of Arians, Manicheans, Donatists, Hussites, Papists, Lutherans, Calvinists. And lastly, the Jansenists and the Molinists have had no more poignant mortification than that of not having been able to slaughter each other in pitched battle. Whence does this come?" — From the Jews. Having lost their country, they had nothing left to fight for than their ideas, their beliefs, a practice they would later bequeath to the pseudo-Christians, all the way down to our own age. But to present also the other side of the coin, which Voltaire missed, it is a much higher thing to fight for an idea than for a piece of dirt, and it is this sort of fighting that will comprise the fight of the future.

117. The Nazarene was indeed free of ressentiment — or at any rate as free of it as any man can be. But not because he was too great a man, but an extremely small one. Which is more or less what Dostoevsky had in mind when he called him an idiot.

116. It's not that God doesn't exist. It's that he doesn't care for the subhumans (or nowhere near as much, at any rate, as he cares for the humans). That's why he leaves their prayers unanswered. For humans and subhumans have always wanted exactly opposite things: We want war, death and destruction recurring eternally; they want "peace", "holidays", and a lot of sleep. We ask for no quarter, and give none; they are constantly begging for handouts and their "equal rights". Even if God wanted to grant everyone's wishes, he simply couldn't, and given that he has to pick a side, it's only natural that he would choose ours over the plebeians'; for as Sabatini points out somewhere, "the gods themselves are all aristocrats".

115. If you want to see what a subhuman really believes in, observe him at the moment of a medical emergency. Who is the first he thinks of, God or his doctor? Where does he first go, the church or the hospital? If he really does believe that his God is above the doctors, why does he unfailingly heed the doctors first in every case of need, and his God only much later, if at all? Therefore he believes first and above all in the descendants of Asclepius and Hippocrates.
   Why asking him is pointless, as regards the truth. What he believes and what he tells you he believes are two entirely different things. What he believes is what he feels will bring him most advantage (hence why he is being smart in believing more in doctors than in his God), what he tells you he believes is ONCE MORE what he feels will bring him most advantage: and this is DIFFERENT from what he really believes — i.e. in this case he wants to seem cool to you and of high morals: "Look, I believe in God", etc. To present all this to the subhuman and try to show him his hypocrisy one might as well try to talk the chameleon out of changing color: that ability is all the poor creature has to hide and accommodate itself in an environment filled with far more powerful creatures; if you are determined to be that cruel you might as well go ahead and kill it. Not to mention that you'd be asking for a degree of consciousness and self-awareness from it that the poor creature simply doesn't have. Does the chameleon know that it's changing color, or is it doing it completely unconsciously, in the same way that a wound heals, the stomach operates, etc.? Do chameleons think about their color-changing abilities, and discuss it among themselves, produce learned treatises on it, etc.? No more than the subhumans think about their beliefs and study whether they are at all consistent with their actions.

114. Jacob Burckhardt: "Only the civilized, Greco-Roman and then European, nations, not the primitive ones, are part of history in a higher sense. The non-Caucasian cultures offer resistance, give way, and die out."

113. There are two kinds of anti-racists: those who act on their own behalf (i.e. who belong to the inferior races), and those who act on the behalf of others. The latter are bored with their lives and want something to do, on top of feeding off the "oppressed" ones' gratitude. The former hate their heritage and want to disappear (since equality is the very last step before the plunge into the abyss of inferiority). Why is there no black, or yellow, or red, etc. supremacism? It would be ridiculous: if any of them claimed any such thing no one would take offence, since it would be patently absurd — it would only form an occasion for laughter. There is only white supremacy; after all, we invented the concept. As for the limited ressentiment kind of racism, seen in Japan for example, this they refute themselves. Who's sitting in chairs, sleeping in beds, and using spoons and forks? Are we the ones wearing kimonos or are they wearing suits? What do they teach in Japanese universities? Why are there even universities in Japan at all? Who has imported thousands of the other's words into their language? Who has the cultural inferiority complex — and deserves to have it?

112. Nietzsche: "What determines your rank is the quantum of power you are: the rest is cowardice."

111. Thought as reduction. Eventually, we were bound to reduce everything to one thing, and from quality arrive at quantity.

110. Rousseau on Machiavelli is the archetype of false interpretation. Rousseau had trouble reconciling Machiavelli's obvious genius and splendid reputation with the ghastly practices the man was recommending to his ideal prince. So he turned this way and that, looking for a way out of the conundrum, and finally, he found it. The solution? It was all a big fat joke, and Machiavelli didn't mean a word of what he wrote! And that's how it always goes with subhumans: You say tomato and the subhuman says banana. In fact the subhuman says banana no matter what the hell you're saying. He will stand there, look you straight in the eye, and claim you meant the opposite of what you said, and, what's worse — and renders any notion of subsequent explanations pointless — he will even believe it!

109. A cultural comparison by comparing roulette types: American roulette is stupid (why not add six zeros, retards?), English roulette is thrifty and mistrustful, and French roulette is laid back, opulent and chic — a real nobleman's and gentleman's version of the game.

108. The homosexual only exists because his parents were not homosexual — but that too is now changing, with the proliferation of the various artificial insemination and surrogacy techniques. Finally, they too can do what everyone else has been doing for millennia. But God has cursed them to create life without passion.

107. The LA gangsters who'd drop all enmities to be in the Tony Scott movie and march together on Santa Monica pier or wherever. Dropping everything for a little dude with a camera who'd jump off a bridge a few weeks later. Enmity is for them a kind of pose. You realize how few men there really are, when even hardened criminals will drop everything to be in front of a camera like any teenage girl.

106. The higher you rise, both physically and spiritually — but mainly spiritually — the more all the creatures around you fade away and slowly disappear. Your parents, friends and relatives, not to mention the person in the street, become dead, can hardly be said to exist for you any more, while all the great figures of the past that all these shortsighted little creatures deem "dead", the philosophers and conquerors, gradually come alive, until one day they are all around you. You play at the higher level, where no one ever truly "dies", and where titanic forces are still waging their eternal struggle in which the pathetic little creatures all around you are not even important enough to be considered pawns; but dirt, atoms, nothingness.

105. All the things the subhumans vent their abysmal hatred on: violence, vindictiveness, pederasty, etc., are precisely the reasons that they exist. Man was the most violent, hateful, vindictive animal. Fetishizing youth is the very reason we exist. Fetishizing beauty, the female form, muscles, etc. By hating the very REASONS THEY EXIST, the subhumans prove beyond doubt that they are degenerate humans, just like the fag who lambasts the "conformist" lifestyle of his heterosexual parents and attempts to foist on society his degenerate condition of a pathological mindless buggery that leads to sterility and death.

104. Consider how refined women's judgement on men is: none of them, and especially the prettier, more demanding ones, wants a man whose life is devoted entirely to them; they want their men to want more. And this makes perfect sense: doubtless the caveman who desired nothing more from life than a woman ended up a bad husband and father. The ideal of woman as the highest prize was thus created by men of the second, even third rank: by lower men, who were not good at finding and securing for themselves good women. Goethe, Schopenhauer, Baudrillard, et al.: all of them lower men in this respect, setting woman (or sex, for the less romantically inclined ones like Schopenhauer) as the highest prize. But women themselves have always known better, that the highest prize must and always will necessarily lie beyond woman.

103. Marianne's behavior towards Colonel Brandon. At last she acknowledges his presence. Was she inconsiderate and cruel to ignore him for so long? This cruelty manifested itself as love towards Willoughby. The same quality that makes them infinitely agreeable to one man, causes them to torture another. In short, it is precisely with her best qualities that a woman hurts, and to hate her for it is a sentiment unworthy of a man. Misogyny is for beta males, fags and feminists. From alpha males there's only love.

102. Why do most people who CAN understand a little bit of philosophy, feel such a strong aversion to it? (evidenced by the fact that they do not tend to go on reading more of it on their own, after someone has initially introduced them to it). Because it reveals to them that, contrary to what they had thought, they are not the center of the universe, and moreover, and which is even worse, there ARE other men who ARE the center of the universe. To be sure, they are the center of THEIR OWN universe, and this applies to all men, and no one can take that away from them, but THE universe is not the same thing as THEIR OWN universe. More specifically, the former consists of the sum of all the latter.

101. Consider America's ludicrous "gun problem". The solutions: either everyone has guns, or no one does. No thinking involved at all on the subhumans' part. And then you have retarded autistic kids getting hold of assault rifles and going on killing sprees. Why did a teacher have a fucking assault rifle at home? The Brits prevent anyone from having a gun, and they even want cops not to have any either. Subhuman stupidity knows no bounds. Meanwhile, noble societies knew what to do ages ago: only the noble caste has weapons, end of story. But since there's no noble caste anymore, while the effectiveness of weapons has blown out of all proportion, you get the subhuman quagmire we are in — which, considering how statistically insignificant deaths from this kind of violence are, isn't even a real quagmire.

100. Ultimately, as the dude in Safety Not Guaranteed correctly points out, time travel has to do with regret, and in this respect it's all the same if you want to go to the past or to the future. It makes no difference where else you'd rather be, the important part is that you'd rather not be right here, right now. There's always plenty of cool, important things to be done, no matter where the here and now may be. Your incapacity to do them is what drives you to wish that you were elsewhere.

99. All attempts at "humanitarian" intervention in Africa have been a disaster. The Western powers occasionally meddle in the affairs of the black continent, playing social engineering for prestige points or to counter Christian guilt-tripping, and when they mess up they take off, leaving behind diseases, guns, wars and decadent ideals.

98. "Above all else, be armed", wrote Machiavelli. It is painful to read a history or a novel set in the days before the slaves took over, and read about men putting on their swords or pistols before going out in the street, as an everyday occurrence. The slaves have completely disarmed us: it is now illegal to go about in any other way than naked. Even in the states, the entire gun control hoopla is much ado about nothing, since it's generally illegal to carry the gun around with you, which after all is what it's for. One step further and the slaves will be removing the nails and beaks from every creature in the street, and the next one will see everyone covered in pillows just in case.

97. "And will your books become movies?" No, they'll become life.

96. There's something pathetic about long friendships. They signify that you've failed to outgrow them.

95. Oh for the days when gentlemen walked around with swords and guns! The often unbearable tediousness of everyday existence could at least be shattered at any moment by a challenge for a duel.

94. Why is the businessman, ultimately, doomed to remain a little man? Because in order to be good at what he does, he has to think of the needs of everyone but himself.

93. They call it Greek mythology, but for the Greeks it was a religion. In the same way, one could speak of Christian mythology, and then the comparison, even on purely aesthetic grounds, finally appears in all its monstrous proportions, to the extent that even a distinction such as aristocratic versus plebeian flagrantly fails to do it justice. In the Greek religion we see the most fascinating and seductive tales of higher beings making war and love and all the rest; in the Christian one some ruffians in a desert praying for bread.

92. The Anonymous/hacktivism, etc. groups. Groups with no goals other than to provoke a reaction, or plain simply retarded goals. Symptomatic of extremely insignificant individuals, who simply have NO OTHER WAY in their normal lives of shaping anything, of achieving anything at all. Utter zeros. That's why they join these groups, and all justifications are attempts to hide this fact, first and above all from themselves.

91. The opposing viewpoints: Everything passes away, so nothing matters. This is nihilism speaking. And the retort: Everything returns, so everything matters. And this is Nietzsche speaking.

90. Neither Pascal nor Kierkegaard can be said to have been in any great measure Christians. Misunderstanding of Christianity — even by them. Nothing but contempt for the "common man", for the subhuman, and they called themselves Christians! Schopenhauer combining pity with contempt. Pity for whom? For those he scorns, lol. If even geniuses misunderstood Christianity, what hope did the subhumans ever have?

89. Somewhere between romantic comedy and hardcore porn, lies the truth about women. Stray too far on either side (by being either too sappy, or too vulgar), and you miss something essential.

88. Time "only moves forward", so it is a special dimension, as opposed to length, for example, which also "moves backward". Flatheaded nonsense. Nothing ever "moves backward", not even in space; the feeling that "I have moved back" is merely a misunderstanding; the reality of that situation is that you have not moved forward enough.

87. The revolutionary crowds in Argo, choking with ressentiment. No essential difference with zombie flicks. The subhuman apocalypse, when it comes, will look a little like that film.

86. The crying of babies is insufferable. And they cry all the time. For this reason if for nothing else we need women, since no one else can stand them.

85. Why is violence always the solution? A solution is a way forward, and the way forward by definition flows. But violence is also flow. The proposition is a tautology: flow is always flow — and if you want to be even more obnoxiously obvious about it you could add, "because it flows". The best solution, because it flows the most.

84. The answer to any problem: from grand politics, to mastering the environment, to combating pseudo-intellectualism and the artfag plague, is always one: death. Violence is the answer to every problem — the only answer. The first and last solution. Everything else is compromise; which is to say retreat, bargaining, defeat.

83. Just as ships have a life raft, and spaceships in the future will have an escape pod — both of whose purpose is to allow the occupants to get away in case of an emergency — so too decadent religions have the soul, and for the same reason.

82. To make fun of stupid people is part of what it means to be intelligent.

81. The realization that we can affect a man's dreams, or desires, or general psychic balance by drugs or electrostimulation makes people uneasy. But what is the difference between this, and say, bashing someone on the head or something with a stone? It is merely a more subtle form of manipulation. Subhumans are getting to the point where they will feel perplexed about their ability to affect the rest of the universe at all. They would rather be causes without effects: mere observers of everything. It is the fact that the soul comes, or should come into it, at some point, that gives them all this trouble, but it turns out it's not needed at all. Where is the soul, if any given scientist can change your entire psychic balance by pressing a couple of buttons? The soul (like the Christian God) is supposed to be "outside" the universe, invincible, impregnable; something that, quite simply, doesn't flow. Which betrays the decadent, reactionary nature of the concept.

80. The retards ask: "Where is the evidence for the inferiority of women?" And I respond: Where is the evidence that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west? Where is the evidence that it takes clouds for it to rain? Where is the evidence that pigs can't fly? It's all around us. Propositions so self-evident that the mere fact that retards question their validity almost constitutes evidence.

79. Early vs. late Baudrillard: more aggressive early, less joyful, less jocular, less sarcastic. Later: less aggressive (has already demolished everything), more tired, more resigned, more mischievous. — He had just about enough strength to demolish everything, but none left with which to build. Building itself he saw as an "illusion"...

78. When the octopus is cornered it sprays ink in every direction to confuse its assailant and, in the utter confusion that ensues, make good its escape. And so it is with the pseudo-intellectuals.

77. I do not understand women and never will; I don't even want to. To desire to belong to someone, to long to be overpowered and commanded — such longings do not seem merely tough to empathize with to me but even absurd. How could anyone wish for such a thing? If I understood it at all it would mean that I am not a man, and by no means constitute a triumph of understanding on the male part of the species. Male and female: this means separate to all eternity, and all touted understanding is merely superficial. The reality, the truth, the essence of the difference are to all eternity ungraspable.

76. To realize to what extent slave culture, genuine slave culture, dominates slave society, and how far feelings have come from the noble days, consider that a mere 200 years ago one was ashamed to admit one was working, and today everyone around you looks down on and pities you if you say you don't work. Women even prefer workers for husbands — they prefer slaves to free men!

75. Thank god we still have Africa. If the entire planet were turned into suburban desert, we wouldn't have anywhere to set our videogames in, no contemporary setting at all — everything would have to be set either in the past (and primarily fantasy) or in the future (some variation of science fiction, either dystopian or post-apocalyptic). The new frontier can't come soon enough. Our urban deserts are useless for art, and once Africa is Westernized so will our real ones. And once the terraformers pour in they'll turn the Sahara into California and we won't even have literal deserts. This also shows up how art works. The exact present is impossible to portray in a good light — however good the present may be. You need that distance vector; and as the planet becomes cleaned up, pacified and wired, distance in space becomes useless and you are forced to rely exclusively on time.

74. Randolph Bourne: "Few people even scratch the surface, much less exhaust the contemplation of their own experience." — Nonsense. Everyone thinks in proportion to the power of their brain and the depth of their experiences (the two of which are, moreover, inextricably related). Potential is a concept that can only be applied a priori, in ignorantia — in the grand scheme of things there's no such thing.

73. On music becoming theatrical. The more theatre in the music, the worse the musicians generally are. Typical band shot — a bunch of pretentious idiots.

72. On catching your woman with another man. Granted that I don't have any experience in this field, I still fail to understand the impulse to beat the man. He is nothing in this entire scene: he did nothing. If you have to beat anyone at all, beat the woman. She is the one from whom you were expecting something. For you were certainly not expecting anything from random strangers. The stranger will always owe you nothing. The woman owes you nothing either, actually — especially given the wretched little sham to which the slaves have finally managed to debase the concept "marriage" — but if you absolutely MUST make someone responsible for something that no one is responsible for, the closest to justice that you can get under the circumstances is to make her.

71. The best thing that happened to the blacks was that they were taken slaves.

70. Russian roulette is not suicide, not even when one plays it by oneself. The question is how far can you go, how many steps can you take, before the inevitable. That is the game. And for the game to exist, the number of chambers in the barrel must be finite. If it were infinite there'd be no game: infinite steps is the same as no steps; in such a game there would be nothing to discover, which is why it wouldn't be one.

69. One advantage of twittering culture is that the sheer volume of petty, idiotic and nonsensical chatter that leads nowhere practically points to the exact opposite direction — which actually leads somewhere. The vast distance between the rabble and the philosopher, the sheer numbers and imbecility of the first compared with the singularity and profundity of the latter, begins to become visible even to weak eyes.

68. People have a vast problem dealing with the notion of the inequality of men. But that the only reason for this problem is envy and resentment is shown by the fact that when it comes to other species, not only is there no problem, but inequality is taken as a given and the mere implication that, for example, a dog may be equal to a man is treated by everyone as proof of madness and cause for internment in mental institutions (and this is indeed how it will eventually be with whoever keeps insisting on the equality of humans and subhumans). And yet a simple substitution is all it takes to reveal the sheer absurdity of the business. Change "men" to "lifeforms" and the deeply reactive nature of the equality lie, the massive incapacity to unblinkingly acknowledge the simple fact that some men are superior, and even vastly superior, to others, stands revealed. For in the end it all comes down to DNA, since species are ultimately fictitious. "All men are equal" means "all DNA is equal". And the only answer that can be given at this point is: O rly?

67. The actor. By continually pretending to be something, you ensure that you never become it. Perpetual pretension. And not pretension as in miming, copying, learning, etc.; i.e. pretension as a means of education — but pretension for the sake of pretension. By continually pretending to be a great man, the one thing you will surely achieve is to never become one.

66. Napoleon and Hitler: two faces of the same coin, with devastation following at the end in either case. Why the extra hatred for the latter? Partly the far greater scale and scope of WWII over the Napoleonic Wars, partly the increased power in the means of war and the ensuing devastation, partly Jewish lies and propaganda. That no one studies history any more and therefore has no clue who Napoleon was and more importantly what he did, is not exactly helping either.

65. To have more fun than the subhuman is a violation of his "equal rights", and it's already illegal. That's what "redistribution" means, and that's why people with sense the world over are against it.

64. The media's predilection for small tragedies (small, because great tragedies only happen to the great, and journalists have not the faintest clue of what greatness is or where to find it) has not yet been explained. So ten kids being killed is news, but millions of kids finishing high school, winning sports championships, learning new languages, etc. is not. If reporting were really representative (instead of merely a reflection of what the rabble wants to see), even the subhuman would realize that the "bad" things are a drop in the bucket (and a necessary drop) and barely even deserve to be mentioned. But good news aggravate the subhuman's ressentiment. Who among them wants to learn of the countless privileged youths who are earning Masters and PhDs, going on skiing trips to the Alps or surfing holidays in Hawaii, etc.? It's the same psychology at bottom that sees tabloid rags running ugly pictures of celebrities to assuage the raging envy of the rabble that reads them. That is how this general impression of chaos and decline is created for a civilization which, in all the essentials, is so obviously flourishing.

63. Getting a woman is very different from keeping her. Here, perhaps, Machiavelli was wrong. Wanting, and doing what it takes to get her, is normal and highly laudable; the expression of a natural desire, etc. Expending any great effort to keep her, on the other hand, is ignoble; a sign that you are dubious about your chances of getting another, perhaps a better one in future.

62. The "Western" canon. As opposed to what? You can see how ludicrous the idea of an "Eastern" canon would be by the fact that no one talks about it — not even the "Easterners". I mean, what exactly would be in it? A couple dozen books the latest of which dates from the Middle Ages? Not to mention "Northern" or "Southern" canons, lol. It was too cold on the North Pole and too hot in Africa to write, let alone think, retards! Which brings us back to the Mediterranean...

61. I travel a lot — but hate tourism. I never travel with a return ticket — I always like to leave open the possibility that I may never go back to wherever I came from. Things are more exciting this way — and I need all the excitement I can get to avoid going nuts from... too much thinking, I guess. This is the curse of thinking. Thinking, basically,consists in predicting the future. This is the sole reason that people think. And the better you get at thinking, the better you get at this prediction game. The problem, however, is that predicting the future is much like watching a movie with a friend who's already seen it, and who is intent on spoiling all the fun for you by whispering in your ear what's going to happen next. The philosopher is basically someone who spoils life for himself in precisely this way. He also makes it better of course, but at the same time spoils it. The stronger and wiser he grows, the more enjoyment he reaps from life, but at the same time the more difficult it becomes for him to actually enjoy this enjoyment. He has to effectively go up against himself: the better his predictive powers become, the more wild and even stupid the things he has to do in order to keep surprising himself — to avoid validating his own goddamn predictions. Which is why Zarathustra says:

...the wisest soul, to whom foolishness speaks sweetest...

60. The three standpoints on fate: 1. My fate will happen regardless of what I do (the average man), 2. My fate will happen because of what I do (the strong man), and 3. My fate will happen despite of what I do (the weak, the desperate man). — A final possibility is God's: "I am fate". But this is merely a variation and upper limit on how the strong man feels.

59. Wittgenstein is — once you have got past "that hocus-pocus of mathematical form", in which, like Spinoza, he encased and masked his philosophy — utterly exasperating. Ethics is transcendental, aesthetics is transcendental, logic is transcendental! — everything is transcendental! But all these things are in the universe, you goddamn brainless twit, how can they be transcendental! The universe is everything, nothing is transcendental! that's just a word imbeciles use to signify that they are incapable of understanding something! — And sure enough, he understood neither logic, nor ethics, nor aesthetics — among a great many other things, practically everything! — partly because he didn't bother reading enough of what his predecessors wrote, but mainly because he was a little man with small experiences and therefore incapable of making any progress in psychology, which is where all these "transcendental" categories begin — and end.

58. Celebrity-worship is a type of self-hatred. The busy man barely has any time for those around him, relatives and friends, never mind for strangers who live half-way around the world. With his absurdly obsessive interest in utter strangers, the subhuman is not only saying that he finds his own life boring, but that he's even given up hope of any improvement in this regard. Celebrities provide subhumans entertainment and escape from the drudgery of being themselves.

57. Which is why I say that true genius ultimately lies, not in proving anyone wrong, but in proving everyone right.

56. Linguistic optics: the time for it has come. The idea is basically that no one (and nothing) is "wrong"; they can't be wrong because they are part of the universe, and whatever is in their brains — in the brains of even the stupidest person — is as "correct" as what's in my mind or Nietzsche's or Baudrillard's. What we need then is an art of interpretation so subtle and powerful that it can bring out the "truth" that's hiding inside even the dumbest person's brains.
   For example, when a Christian says "God created the universe and he loves me", he is not wrong. It's just that the concepts he designates with the words "God", "universe" and "love" are different from the concepts someone smart and educated, like me for instance, designates. For me the word "God", going by the Christian's definition of omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, etc., is an empty word, a non-concept, since the predicates the Christian attaches to it are incommensurate with each other. But when the Christian says "God", he doesn't really mean an "omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being" (since he's so dumb he can't even grasp what these concepts mean, and hence uses them in ape-like and parrot-like fashion); he simply means "a very powerful being". Similarly, when he says "universe" he doesn't mean what I mean by "universe" (i.e. "everything"), he simply means "the earth" — or at most, if he's had a whiff of astronomy, perhaps "the solar system". And finally, when he says "love" he doesn't mean what I mean by "love" (i.e. a desire for possession, in order to shape the thing possessed), but the exact opposite, i.e. "help me" (= shape me).
   So basically, when the Christian says "God created the universe and he loves me", what he's really saying, translated in our language, is "A very powerful being created the earth (or the solar system), and he wants to help me" — which could very well be true!
   All of this stems from Nietzsche's positive theory of language, which basically says that a word means WHAT THE SPEAKER WANTS IT TO MEAN, and has no necessary connection to any pre-existing convention between speaker and listener. Ultimately, each person gives his own meaning to every word, which is only natural since this meaning is to be found inside each person's brain, and all brains are different.

55. "Waaaaaaah, mooooooommy, he swears a lot, I don't like him!" — I don't like you either, fuckface. As for the swearing, Earth to flaming faget: that's how men talk. If you don't like it, go sit with the womenfolk.

54. Journalistic integrity. The journalists are constantly trying to shift the discussion to the issue of integrity whenever their profession comes under attack. But integrity is the very last thing that matters here. For you could be the most honest person in the world and still be a brainless imbecile (and indeed, that is precisely what the most honest people in the world are). The correct retort then here is: "No one gives a flying fuck about your honesty if you are an uneducated blockhead like all journalists ever, asshole. Go screw yourself."

53. I love France. I love everything about it — even the rudeness and the snobbishness. If I could not have been born Greek, I would have wanted to be a Frenchman. Failing that, Italian. Failing that I would rather I'd never been born. The "dolce vita", at least as far as we earthlings are concerned, begins and ends in the Mediterranean.

52. What does it say about democratic politics that in the overwhelming majority of countries there are only two electable parties, instead of, say five or six or seven? That the number one thing voters care about is not the issues but the spectacle of the race — the game — which arrives at its peak when there are only two contenders.

51. "Your banking system enslaves us." But that is merely ressentiment talking. For there were slaves long before there was a banking system, and there will be slaves long after the banking system is no more. It is not the Other who enslaves you, but always you yourself, when you refuse to make the ultimate sacrifice and put your life on the line in order to chase after your dreams.

50. Why do the slaves have an inverted perspective in the taking/giving business? Because of their narrow worldview. They only see what the masters take from them, and disregard what they give them — everything, including, and first and above all, life itself.

49. The popular metaphor that a man "takes" a woman is well-meant, but wrong. For it is obviously the woman who takes, and the man who gives. He who gives, however, is stronger. And since from the slaves' inverted perspective the opposite appears, it has come to pass that popular usage has created this expression.

48. Leibniz said that this is the best of all possible worlds, and Voltaire wrote an entire novel satirizing this claim. But what does "best of all possible worlds" mean, when the existence of "other" worlds is an absurdity, as far as we are concerned, and we'd be in no position to compare them even if it were otherwise? All it means is "I love myself", since in the definition of world the I is included, and is indeed what one refers to when one speaks of "the world", since the only aspect of "the world" that one can ever have experience of is oneself. "This is the best of all possible worlds" therefore means "I love myself", and to deride this means self-hatred.

47. Fate, the way I use the word, is a kind of boasting, while with others it's complaint. Same word, but antithetical concept, with the meaning depending, as always, on the degree of power of the speaker.

46. The word "jungle" has very different connotations to the ears of a hare and of a tiger. To the hare it recalls a constant state of fear and watchfulness, a hostile environment in which the least mistake can spell doom; whilst to the tiger all it means is merely "home".

45. "I want to have his babies." They know exactly whom the babies belong to. In fact there's no other way to phrase it. I want to have our babies sounds weird.

44. Reggae is the most disgusting kind of music there is, more disgusting even than the most miserable, most depressing kind of peasant and folk music. And a look at the smelly rastafarian bastards will reveal the reason why. Ugly, lazy, shitty music for ugly, lazy, stupid people. "Don't worry, be happy." Keep telling that to yourself, dude!

43. To feel resentment is to admit defeat. It's not even a matter of allowing yourself to feel resentment or not — you have no choice in the matter: you've either been defeated or you've not. The winner has neither the time nor any reason to feel resentment; the loser has both a very good reason and all the time in the world.

42. No woman has yet been touched by any genuine philosophical concern whatever.

41. Us versus Them: this is a crucial distinction. Without it there's no war, and with no war no victory. But the slaves have eliminated Them and fancy that we've all become Us now, whereas in reality the opposite has happened: each one of Us is now surrounded by Them.

40. Star attraction, movie premieres, sports events, red carpets and gala openings: the eternal war between depth and appearances. But there is no war at all between them, since the purpose of depth is to create a stronger, and thus more beautiful, appearance; to transform itself into appearance. Those who scorn appearances and evangelize depth are precisely those who are incapable of much, if any, depth: the pseudo-intellectuals, which is why it is by no means an accident that all of them are ugly.

39. Beginners with Ewan McGregor. Heart-breaking gay story. You can always make a heart-breaking gay story about any loser ever, but there comes a time when you need to sit down and go beyond the shallow guilt-tripping and look into realities. No doubt the ants whose entire colonies were flattened when you cleared up the land to build your school or hospital could tell stories a thousand times more heart-breaking than those of a couple of fags, but if you actually stop building schools and hospitals because of them, YOUR FUTURE will become a heart-breaking gay story for lifeforms not dumb enough to fall prey to the sentimental guilt-tripping of losers.

38. Metacritic: the more critics you average over, the more the average tends towards the opinion of the average person in the street, and hence becomes superfluous, self-negating, since it is precisely the purpose of criticism to give you something more than the opinion of the average person in the street. Metacritic here works exactly like journalism, which in its more advanced stages tends towards simply reflecting the rabble's opinion back to it. The most successful journalist is he who has no ideas of his own, but best manages to predict how the rabble will feel, and serves its eventual opinion to it in advance. Even better, to be as average a man himself as possible so that no advanced inquiring, insight, dissimulation will be required on his part, but merely to write down his simple, average thoughts like the simple, average man that he is. The application of democracy to criticism and cultural analysis here has the same effect, tending to either cancel itself out or reinforce its own functioning, depending on how you see it. Metacritic then is no more really a critic than a democratic government is really a government (or public opinion is really an opinion) — and so it is with everything.

37. So how do you find a good leader then? You don't. He finds you.

36. Hitler: "Sooner will a camel pass through a needle's head, than a great man be found by an election."

35. Ultimately, even democracies do not work democratically. The masses elect the leader, but then he APPOINTS his cabinet, etc., which in turn appoint their inferiors, all the way down to the day-to-day running of the most insignificant government agency. For a "democracy" to really function democratically, the masses would have to be consulted on every move that happens; you'd need a plebiscite for every budgetary measure, every foreign action, every hiring and firing of the most insignificant civil servant, at which point the leader would be superfluous, since all his moves would have been made for him. It is precisely due to the fact that all his moves are not made for him, i.e. because he autarchically, tyrannically, unilaterally makes at least some moves, that he is necessary — it is precisely this tyranical dimension of his that one praises when one praises a leader as a "good leader", i.e. a good tyrant. — Representative democracy, then, is not democracy at all, except in the most tenuous sense of the word, and it is for this reason that it is not a complete disaster — as it would be if the masses were asked to vote on everything. It still is a disaster, of course (because the most important decision, the identity of the supreme leader, is indeed decided by the masses), but precisely to this small degree of tyranny allowed, and even actively encouraged, not a complete one.

34. Once you have realized that there cannot exist equal things, order of rank follows immediately.

33. Or, more simply, two different things cannot be equal because then they wouldn't be different.

32. Why there cannot exist two equal things. Because each thing is related to everything else in the universe. For two different things to be equal they would have to be related to all other things in the universe in an exactly equal fashion, including to each other, in which case they would have to be the same thing, i.e. not different things. I believe the mathematicians call this sort of proof "reductio ad absurdum".

31. The shift from classical to quantum mechanics (the latter a misnomer, since quantum mechanics are not mechanics), marks the shift from certainty to statistics — i.e. to uncertainty. But nothing fundamental has changed, since there was no certainty with the classicists' "certainty" either — they merely believed in it, but they were mistaken.

30. Out of all the ideological morons who are peddling their grossly outdated fantasies in the marketplace today, the only ones who should be taken seriously are the capitalists: rich people who can show you how to get rich. They might not know much else about life and the universe, but at least they know this one thing! — compared to all the other penniless retards who know absolutely fucking nothing about anything.

29. Precisely the fact that a utopia is something by definition unachievable proves that God doesn't want it to be achieved. It's not therefore so much "other people", or man's "evil nature", which stands in the way of the utopians' fantasies — as every last one of these utterly unhinged individuals would have you believe — but God himself who is against them.

28. Buddhists, Christians, democrats, socialists, communists, anarchists: Precisely because none of them already have the utopia that they are all so desperately seeking, it'd be ridiculous to take their absurd, incoherent ravings seriously, as ridiculous, indeed, as taking business advice from a homeless person.

27. The writer W.G. Sebald once wrote, "Men and animals regard each other across a gulf of mutual incomprehension". This is wrong. The higher animals understand the lower just fine — as much, at any rate, as it is possible to understand anything. But it is certainly true of the lower animals (of which W.G. Sebold was one), and consequently of subhumans — though naturally enough they themselves think otherwise. For ultimately everyone thinks they understand everything. And they do. Only one's "everything" isn't everything, and everythings are no more equal than anything else.

26. Whether it's chimpanzees hollering and grunting, religious nuts Koran- and Bible-thumping, or philosophers engaged in the most sublime and transmontane abstraction acrobatics, the end result is the same: In all cases feelings have been transmitted and a general course of action agreed upon; the particular forms in which this transmission can occur — whether via grunts, holy-book-thumping or complex and reasoned argument — are merely the different ways in which different species of lifeforms transmit feelings. The relative change in the complexity of the process is merely a reflection of the relative difference in the complexity of the lifeforms; the more complex lifeforms will naturally require a more complex process, all the way up to this book: the most complex book that will ever be written.

25. Baudrillard: "The ultimate achievement is to live beyond the end, by any means whatever."

24. We die twice, once when the last breath leaves our bodies, and again when the last person who knows our name dies.

23. The barbarians never conquered Rome, as is generally believed. They simply became Romans, just as the Romans had become Greeks before them, and everyone is becoming Western now. The greater culture always conquers the lower in the long run, no matter what happens on the battlefield, because there's always been, and there always will be, a greater war than that between nations: that between individuals.

22. A man who has settled down is merely another kind of woman.

21. The theory "of everything". To realize how absurd the notion of such a theory is consider this: such a theory would be able to predict what you would do before you did it. You would have the prediction before you acted. In which case you could do something else and prove it wrong. The theory of everything would end up being a theory that anyone could prove wrong at any time, lol. The purported smartest theory would actually be, as is only fitting, the stupidest.

20. Ideally, one should never ask a woman anything. More: one should never ask a woman for anything — one should only give to her.

19. It is by foregoing all other women and focusing on one, that a relationship acquires the highest degree of meaningfulness. And it is by foregoing all other possibilities in life — i.e. all other people — and becoming oneself, that one's life does likewise.

18. Sřren Kierkegaard: "People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me."

17. Understanding goes from higher to lower, there's no understanding from lower to higher, only misunderstanding — some absurd simplification/falsification/reinterpretation of the signs. I am not talking to you, you just happen to be within hearing distance while I address the ones I am talking to. Moreover, there's no question of you disagreeing — or even of agreeing with me, since you can't even parse what I am saying. We are neither agreeing nor disagreeing; we are not even communicating. You are just flapping your lips; I am the only one here who's talking; and as I've just explained, and you've failed to understand, not to you.

16. The confidence faggotry. "Just be confident", etc. The most they can do is bluff, but a man who's bluffing will react very differently from someone who's the real deal when pushed — and then all your stupid blanket advice will manage to accomplish is to get some poor little weakling's face smashed in.

15. The shallow thinkers — who want moreover to pass to you for "humanitarians" — say: "Don't investigate the people, investigate the system". But the people are the system. Who do you think created the system? The magical system fairies? Investigating the system ends up leading you back to the people; more precisely, to the psychological processes which led them to create it.

14. I have nothing but love for my teachers. To be resentful of and hate your teacher is the first symptom of the bad, the hopeless student. And to envy him of the mediocre.

13. The kingdom of God is inside you, said the Nazarene. But the subhumans are still looking for it, not merely outside themselves, but even "outside" the universe. You can lead a mule to water...

12. How does resentment feel? It feels like unfairness, injustice. It directs the gaze outward, to protect one from dwelling on the flagrant lack of power which led one to feel resentment in the first place. It is not the Other that is causing the resentment, but yourself, and all resentment does is protect you from this painful realization, which would be otherwise added to the already unbearable pain of the resentment's cause.

11. If you say, "it is not fair that his parents are rich and mine poor", you might as well say, "it is not fair that he is tall and I am short". And why stop there? It is not fair that the earth turns around the sun, the sun should turn around the earth — at which point the sheer absurdity and wretchedness of the whole business becomes obvious.

10. The microscientists claim that there "are" 4, or 6, or 27 dimensions, dispute each other's claims and try to "find" exactly how many dimensions there "are". But a dimension is not something that exists outside the brain, but a mere concept that the brain creates and projects onto its environment in order to "understand" it (i.e., as I'll be explaining shortly, predict its behavior with a view to shaping it for its wishes). The microscientists have once more mistaken their models for reality, and have confused the question of the number of dimensions of the universe (infinite — which is to say the same thing as one), with the number of dimensions in their models (the more the better). The more dimensions a brain can resolve, the more subtle, more powerful it is. Which is why the microscientists say that there "are" 4, or 6, or 27 of them — and I say infinite.

9. "Life's too short" means: "my power's too small".

8. Napoleon's tomb at Les Invalides. The feeling of weight here would crush even an Atlas. This is no mere "man's" tomb, is what the architect is saying to you: a superhuman being must lie here. And now compare him with the celebrity nobodies if you want to understand the meaning of the word "nausea".

7. In short, all cultures are equal, but some are more equal than others. The subhumans are the pigs in Orwell's parable, and even Orwell himself was one of them: an eloquent and crafty little pig.

6. "ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL. WE SHOULD LOVE AND CHERISH ALL OF THEM EQUALLY." O rly? And what about the cultures that practice human sacrifice? Are those equal too? Or how about Viking culture, or samurai culture, or Taliban culture, etc. etc. etc. But what the subhuman means by "culture" is merely some funny costumes and exotic dishes (which, by the way, are not equal either). That's how far his understanding of the concept of culture goes. And so it is with everything. So while hypocritically professing the equality of all cultures, he is hard at work in their destruction, and in the universalization and domination of his own: subhuman culture.

5. The anti-racists say: there are no races. There are no lions, tigers, cougars, jaguars, panthers: they are all just cats. There are no blacks and whites — we are all just people. There are no people and animals — we are all just lifeforms. There are no beings and things — we are all just parts of the flux. Which strictly speaking is true, but which, by depriving us of any possible words and concepts, in no way helps us analyze anything or even so much as communicate — by which fact the will of those who reason in this way stands revealed.

4. The so-called "real" is merely someone else's fantasy.

3. From the Declaration of Independence of a future Human nation: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all lifeforms are created unequal, that they have no rights whatsoever apart from those that the ruling caste deems expedient to endow them with at any given time, and that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are not ideals to be placed over free men but mirages with which to confuse the weak minds of slaves and lead them to their holding cells".

2. God's secret. Contrary to popular belief, he doesn't like to be "outside" the universe. He prefers to be inside it, where, as he himself has put it, "all the fun shit happens". For the eternal enemy of God is not, and has never been the Devil (for in fact the two of them are one and the same being), but good old plain boredom.

1. And as God once spun the whole world out of himself, so too the time will come for the world to coalesce and fuse in such a way as to recreate God. From which follows...

He could refract an idea which everyone thought simple into a hundred others, as the prism does with sunlight, each finer than the other, then gather together a host of others to recreate the white light of the sun, where others merely saw disorder and confusion.