It's more likely than all these new personnel being deployed domestically.
I mean, you gotta have some excuse for having your budget go up. Why not some competitive Mexican colonialism? "My cutout can beat up your cutout!"
The point is, whatever story they're telling you, you can rule out that story as a possibility.
If you steelman idolatry it goes basic. It's when you worship something that isn't sacred. It's not difficult to make a sacred idol, though you have to be sure not to confuse the symbol for the symbolized target.
Christians obviously have all sorts of idols, it's just not called idolatry because as always Christianity is in fact Satanism and being consistent is heresy against Satan. A non-hypocritical Christian is doing it wrong.
"The west as an ideology has a beginning and an end. Maybe one global
empire centered on Rome was the imagined end but it didn't work out that
way."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/eaterswedn/status/1545123516932038658
Seems about right. Hajnal Europeans bet everything on doing Rome successfully, but that's impossible because Rome was inherently impious. Gnon has words for those who attempt it.
Since everything was bet, everything is forfeit.
Unless Europeans wake up one day, get a cup of coffee, and realize ethnic cleansing is good actually, they will fatally miscegenate with the races they've alloyed their countries with.
Background: you get one generation of hybrid vigor, then endless repeats of hybrid breakdown. Genes are like a symphony, and if you mix two races, it's not that either race is wrong, but that the body is trying to half play each of two songs that don't harmonize. Stupid example: whether an allele is associated with higher IQ or lower depends on what other genes are trying to raise IQ. Mixed races are inherently worse than either parent.
Presumably first due to slaving practices and second due to the Ottomans, Greeks have an IQ of 92. It's no mystery that they produce no more Socrates. Italy has an IQ of 93. Empire is fatal for the race that attempts it. While only the crazy or desperate miscegenate, it turns out there's no shortage of either of those and invasive genes never end up ghettoized.
Since Easterners are far more interested in obedience to persons rather than obedience to nature or any other higher power, they prefer conformity to discovery. Every improvement is a change, and they don't change unless they have to. Even then, it's only changing who they're copying to a new target. Quite possibly they might one day choose death over having to change.
As such, there is no reason to think the Athenian tradition has any chance of survival.
Apparently eating dogs is uniquely "cruel." Why is that?
Answer: they don't imagine eating a dog. They imagine you're eating their pet dog.
Same way women can't think of "men" as a category. When they say "all men are pigs" they mean, "my dad is a pig" or "my ex was a pig." (Often, worse, "My dad was a pig yesterday when he ate the peach.")
You could point out that whether it's cruel or not depends on whether they use the captured-bolt execution method. You could point out that keeping a cow as a companionship pet and then eating it would likewise be messed up, but of course that's a hypothetical and quite beyond their ken. Beef comes from the supermarket, right? What's cruel about disembowelling a plastic package? Imagine trying to imagine a cow while you have aphantasia.
I would like to highlight the solipsistic narcissism. "Eating dogs over there across 5000 miles of Pacific Ocean is about me and my dog."
Voting is really, truly, a horribly awful idea. Good thing it doesn't work.
P.S. In ye olden days, when they said a man had "vision" were they saying "holy shit that guy has an imagination" or something? "Tit-twisting cuntsacks! Guys, I saw a picture in my mind! I'm having visions!" By the knicker-top elastic, that's really something, John. "Dumb daydreamer, stop that and pay attention in school. Look at this homo who sees shapes and colours with his eyes shut."
Cost to raise man: $200,000. Worth of man: $700,000. Crazy profit margins. Salary's low, though. Only $9000 per person per year. Today I'm neglecting the intangibles and the fact the parents tend not to capture much of the material value.
However, the more children you have, the better the salary is. Two children: $13,500. Three children: $16,200. Eight children: $21,600.
Zeroth, note this puts an upper limit on your country-wide average salary. It can't be any higher than some constant * the average profit/kid because there's nowhere else for it to come from. (Unless central bank &c.) There are no activities that produce value without human labour. Average salary is not exactly the same as profit/kid because the generations overlap in practice.
In a non-Malthusian economy, the bigger your families, the richer your country will be. (P.S. population decline is eugenic and in the long term most modern families need to die out. It's worth the temporary privation to get long-term genetic gains. It won't be enough, but nevertheless.)
If this calculation hasn't neglected anything important, we would expect that those with larger families are more satisfied than those with smaller families. The only child seems enviable because they get all of their parents' attention, but in practice that attention is negative or corrupt because they become a reminder of the parent's genetic failure, and thus become a outlet for their stress. Children clearly crave more attention than they need for some stupid reason; alternatively in a large family they can get plenty of attention from their siblings. Children have more free time so you would expect that in a large family, there is more attention available. As long as they're not in school, anyway.
Meanwhile, parents of large families note that it becomes easier the more you have. Apparently the tipping point is around 2. The first two start to help to take care of the third. You also start to get economies of scale. The difference between 0 kids and 1 kid is, to oversimplify, kid-proofing your house. For the second, the house is already kid-proofed, you just need a second bed. And so on.
--
I think folk have few kids mainly as a status symbol. "Aristocrats in the 1500s had small families, and Every Man a King, therefore I must have as small a family as possible." Likewise, peasants had to have tons of kids because so many died that in most parts of the world they didn't even name the kid for a year or two. They don't think about what they're doing or get feedback in any way, it's manic status-striving combined with paranoid conformity.
Because children are profitable, being able to afford fewer kids is a way to show off your above-average salary. Social status is relative, not absolute, so problem: at most half of parents can have above-average salaries... Not to mention the dysgenic effects of an inverse relationship between salary and family size.
When a Christian is preaching at you, it feels a certain way.
When a Wokist is preaching at you, it feels nearly the exact same way.
This is because they are the same religion. They differ cosmetically, but your gut isn't fooled.
Note that a real body of scholars would have names for the set of properties making up the feeling which identifies a religion like this. "Christianty feels hudlrog and sublang, and likewise Wokism feels sublang and hudlorg." With names you would be able to draw lines through that religion and other phenomena and see what specific features they are tags for.
Since you don't have names, you can only learn by painstakingly re-inventing the wheel. E.g. one isn't religion-specific, but instead the feeling of being preached at.
Why do they keep saying never to leave anything out for more than 29 seconds? Why are you supposed to instantly panic and immediately shove everything in the fridge?
Partly to check, I regularly leave food out for 24-48 hours and eat it normally. Never caused me the slightest issue. By contrast, I have caused myself an issue by improperly washing dishes.
Cooking sterilizes. If you leave food out, it will gather the most opportunistic organisms from the air - the ones that find it most delicious. Indeed the pre-industrial way to gather baker's yeast is to wet some flour and leave it out in a dish. Thus, the stuff that lives on old cooked food is exactly the stuff you need in your gut to digest it thoroughly.
They want to lay waste to your symbiotic gut flora by over-prescribing antibiotics, and then do everything possible to ensure it can't come back.
You would think they don't understand the biology well, but intent matters. Intent matters a lot. They intend for you to be unhealthy, and their actions always line up with this goal.
P.S. Baker's yeast is delicious. A bit musty, sure, but it's a good must. I use it like pepper sometimes.
Marmite is yeast extract. Why bother extracting it?
Fun thing I accidentally discovered: guzzle fruit juice, chase with spoon of yeast. It fermented in my stomach, because the juice dilutes my stomach acid enough to avoid killing the yeast. Interesting sensation.
Most Wikipedia articles are extended putrescences of the local cancerous religion. There's a few dry 'factual' articles, drained of blood. The encyclopedia is also far too big to remove every good article.
Yes there's a whole wiki page on how "I refute it thus" is a fallacy.
It's especially good because Berkeley was basically correct. It's impossible to get subjective reality out of objective reality, whereas the reverse is easy.
