Since Christianity is actually Satanism, their Satanology tends to be very accurate, even down to small details. The Christ was (also) Antichrist all along.
Although ironically worshipping Satan with insulation or at one remove seems to be much less unhealthy than worshipping Satan honourably. Anyone who actually calls himself a Satanist develops Palpatine face at a very early age.
We can call Fascism Inquisitorial government. Mythological Inquisition, not historical. Salem witch hunts, not Spanish Catholicism. It's about obsessing over sinners 24/7.
The dogmatism and xenophobia results because We Hold These Truths to be Self Evident, and thus everyone must have already heard the Good News of human genetic identicality. Anyone who suggests individuals differ is just a liar and a troll. Anyone rejecting human uniformity must be a vicious heretic bent on destruction of the Inquisition. (Egalitarianism wasn't narcissistic enough, so we made it more narcissistic.)
Utopianism is about attributing all flaws to malicious sin. Usually a specific human sinner, with an address and a family and so on.
There's no such thing as an accident, an unfortunate (ugly) truth, or even simple ignorance. Something Must be Done, because everything bad is itself being Done.
The third point is about organized sinners. Obviously, the only way our organized Inquisitorial government could fail to wipe out imperfection is if there was an organized cabal of sinners who evilly sin against us for evulz. The Inquisition, of course, is totally pure and can do no wrong.
I could probably condense those two points into one.
Fanatics are of course no stranger to hypocrisy, so they consistently notice that one sex is less capable of upholding uniformity (to their twisted ideal) than another. A sane person would perhaps start wondering if perhaps the genders differ, but of course these fanatics are largely aware their beliefs are bullshit anyway. Can't wake up someone who is only pretending to be asleep. Thus one gender gets assigned to [sinner] status.
Obviously, while sin is sin, opposing the Inquisition is always a greater sin. Do you want sin to run rampant? Thus whenever a vote or even a law runs contrary to Inquisition interests, it is found to be sinning and rejected, no matter how consistent with its overt principles.
Although non-Inquisition ideas are always sinful (see point 1) sometimes they're also correct, which means they have to be disguised as Inquisition ideas. Humanism means worship of humans, which means worship of homo hypocritus, which means worship of having no integrity. On the obverse, occasionally Inquisition tenets are discredited, and become totally untenable. Obviously reality can't be allowed to sin like that, and the ideas must be re-created by having them wear a skinsuit.
More generally, the purpose of Inquisitorial government is to find an punish sinners. If none can be found, they will be freely invented.
P.S. Point six is reinforced by the revolutionary nature of theocratic egalitarianism, as described by Plato. The old shall revere the young, for the old are wise and the young are foolish. Everything old must be made new, else it be discredited for suggesting that old folks might differ from the young.
All government intervention is counterproductive. Public choice theory is just right all the time.
The only exception is cap-and-trade for acid rain. I wonder if maybe the government sees itself as genuinely owning those forests, so for once it was responsible action, instead of irresponsible action?
The Chinese aren't very communist, but they're communist enough that their ncov numbers were 100% fake from day one. We have no idea what actually happened. Was it contained? Not contained? It's hard to tell even in the G8. The hysteria was certainly real, but I don't know anyone who died of it - or even got sick, except myself - and you probably don't either.
However, since government intervention is guaranteed to be counterproductive, even if they managed to contain the Wuhan outbreak, in the long term they will fail to contain the outbreak. It will be all costs and no benefits. Hence the recent problems with an airport. Fact is the rest of the world didn't contain it (as most likely China didn't, really) and will continually re-introduce it.
Most likely containment will fail on its own, but worst-case they will get tired of shutting down commerce every month or two and surrender to the infection.
P.S. Biological weapons of mass destruction aren't real because even the densest midwit in a leadership position is sharp enough to understand that you will infect your own country 100% of the time.
Chemical weapons aren't real because they don't work. Just use a gun. It's easier, cheaper, and far more reliable.
Nuclear weapons are real, though they're not nearly as destructive to physical infrastructure as to psychological infrastructure. They're the apotheosis of shock and awe. Nuclear winter is almost certainly not real. Nuclear contamination is beneficial instead of harmful after about two years at most.
The hydrogen bomb is the solar bomb, and the uranium bomb is the nova bomb. Turns out stars are life-giving, not life-ending. Sunlight and starlight is also purifying, which is why Regressives hate the technology so much.
All three do make properly hysterical ad copy. Uh I mean newspaper copy.
If you create a model of the world that uses a fundament of objectivity, you reliably conclude that consciousness doesn't exist. Consciousness does exist, which means the philosophy is empirically unsound.
This amuses me greatly. Though of course it shouldn't. Naturally Empiricists would betray empiricism. Why should it ever be otherwise?
By contrast, a model using the subjective as primary has no trouble re-deriving physics from solipsism. The objective world is merely the thoughts that are shared as opposed to the thoughts which are private.
If the thoughts were not logically consistent across minds, they would not be shared, as a matter of logical necessity. We do in fact observe other minds (regardless of how reliable that observation is) and therefore absent strong evidence to the contrary, should assume some thoughts are shared.
Since thoughts are shared and logically consistent, they must be consistent across observers - in other words, to reiterate the properties of objectivity.
To see this another way, notice how the shared-thoughts paradigm causes Newton's Third Law. If I perceive your thought touching my thought, likewise you must perceive my thought touching yours. (Kindly leave the gutter thoughts to adolescents. They have that covered.) Else there's a logical inconsistency, and the thoughts are not in fact shared, and you'll be able to observe them rapidly diverging even if they appear coincident at first glance.
Perhaps one form of death is losing track of the shared thoughts. If you forget all other minds, it is like they don't exist, and likewise, to them, like you don't exist. You may still exist, but it doesn't matter.
"for the Marxist, religion can only be seen as a tool to exploit and delude the masses and this contention is supported by the notion that there is only matter, the Marxist philosophical method is dialectical materialism."https://www.xenopolitix.com/post/lenin-s-philosophy
More precisely, Marxism is a religion.
The more religious a religion is, the weaker it is, and Marxism is very, very religious, and thus very, very weak. It must ferociously attack anything with the tiniest whiff of competition, lest that thing accidentally crush Marxism by rolling over during an afternoon nap.
This feature of religions isn't inherent to religion, but rather inherent to humans. Homo hypocritus vastly prefers false religions, and thus the more a human likes a religion, the more false you can be assured it is. Gnon, the true god, rather dislikes falsehood and punishes these religions with pain and failure. Homo hypocritus takes this as an opportunity to show they really, really believe. Look how much damage they're willing to take on behalf of the religion! Very loyal. (As if loyalty was not a sin.)
In homo hypocritus, agreeability means not disputing lies. The agreeable person essentially agrees to be exploited by anyone even vaguely psychopathic.
We can see the State strongly selects against disagreeability, resulting in "civilized" populations which are fundamentally gullible.
"In a sense, they are correct: why torpedo your own career and social prospects to become a social pariah? Are you mad? Few people think there is a Heaven or eternal reward if you do so; and so to spite the system seems like self-harm—only a stupid person would do it. "
https://www.xenopolitix.com/post/retards-midwits-and-geniuses
At least, fundamentally committed to acting gullible, so much so that you can extract wealth from them by holding their career hostage.
Indeed they become so agreeable that the State finds itself unable to fend off its own psychopathic elements. The lies it feeds to its host population are used against it, progressively more intensely, until the State fails. The system tried to hold midwit's careers hostage, and is in turn held hostage to its system of hostage-taking.
The correct thing to do is always to sacrifice the hostage and kill the hostage-taker, but an agreeable person can and will never do this, which is exactly why the State frantically suppresses anyone disagreeable.
Sadly, I can only say the disagreeable deserve this fate. They, too, are human. They consistently believe God will save them as a result of mouthing pious platitudes - in other words, they don't need to organize or figure out how to get along with other disagreeable people. Set aside their differences due to a common threat? Nonsense, Providence will provide.
"I believe in hierarchy!"
The disagreeable isn't capable of disputing orthodoxy, they are obligated to dispute orthodoxy, exactly the way the agreeable person is obligated to uphold orthodoxy.
"I believe in hierachy - as long as I don't have to join one, of course!" This is why democracy is even vaguely stable. It recruits its own enemies to its cause. The agreeable: "I'm an individual, I think for myself!" they chant, repeatedly, in unison. The disagreeable man cannot, fundamentally, oppose this idea. They think for themselves even, or perhaps especially, when they shouldn't. Naturally, telling the truth would piss off even someone who wasn't shackled to the agreeable-disagreeable axis. "Having thought for myself, I have determined you shouldn't think for yourself." Not exactly rhetorical brilliance here.
Indeed, perhaps a fortiori. The disagreeable prefer living under a full liar/tyrant regime, because if the State says anything true, the disagreeable will perforce say a falsehood. Much more comfortable, on balance, if they never have to lie because the State never tells the truth.
Naturally the agreeable are likewise pleased with full liar/tyrant regimes, because they get to demonstrate their cuckold bona-fides so intensely. "You wanna slave? I'm the most supine slave to ever prostrate!" Cool, yeah that's exactly what I wanted...
Shouldn't there be someone fundamentally non-ignorant writing for the internet? Somewhere?
"Now it has completely reversed course, realizing that Africa's high fertility will give it global dominance in the end."
Africa can have as many votes as it wants, but it doesn't matter, because it will still be Africa. Fun fact: democracy isn't real.
"If Scotland breeds too many sheep, the sheep will rise up and kill us all!"
This happens because grassland apes have an app for that. If the next tribe over has children and yours doesn't, that's a real problem. As a result, you get chimpouts regarding other folks having children from time to time. Monkey see, monkey screech.
However, if you think about it, you may notice we live in an industrial society, not a grassland hunter tribe. The British already demonstrated the effects of this using the Maxim gun on Zulus. If that's too long ago for you, remember what happened when America briefly let its military off the leash so they could frolic in Afghanistan. The simple fact is that Africa still has humans in it because the West has mercifully decided not to simply remove them all. It wouldn't even count as a war; more like tidying up. That will not change, regardless of how many humans happen to be there.
Though certainly low fertility under modernism is something of a problem, that's a symptom, not a cause. Folks aren't fucking because the civilization is already fucked. If you unbuggered the economy the symptoms would solve themselves, but of course buggering the economy for fun and profit is the core purpose of the western Regime.
In reality if the Regime uses Africans as domestic saboteurs too effectively, the net result will be a loss of foreign "aid" and thus extremely deadly famines across Africa. I suspect even African leaders aren't stupid enough to fail to appreciate this dependence. Whoever is in charge of Rwanda, in particular, knows exactly what's up.
Classrooms with teachers, the lecture format, last made sense before the printing press.
At university, the lecturer would stand in front of the class and read a book. The students would copy the book down, because it was cheaper than paying a scribe to copy it for you, and those were the only two ways you would get your own copy of the book. The only limit to this process was how many could hear the lecturer accurately, though in practice even this distinctly drudgerous task was fairly expensive, even when split 30 ways or whatever.
Now it's far faster, easier, and cheaper to print a copy of the lecture notes and have the students read the notes themselves. However, in the meantime lecturers had accrued social status, so we can't have that, now can we...
When not merely lecturing, but teaching, the maximum effective class size is about 4. Any bigger than that and a trained monkey with a 4-man class can do better than the top expert in the field.
Further, hostile environments shut down the learning process. The alleged student is focusing on their enemies, not on new information, especially information that's reflexively coded as 'toy' to the savannah-issue brain.
Or, reminder: schools are not for education. Nobody with sense tries to learn anything at school, or builds a school with the intent to teach. A tiny amount of historical literacy, or just thinking about it, scuttles the plan immediately.
Imagine a vast dark field, with a handful of harsh spotlights being shone into it.
The government is behind the spotlights. "We're watching you! We're watching you!" they scream.
The peasants are cringing under the light, jammed together with everyone trying to fit into the circle. "We have nothing to hide! We have nothing to hide!" they plead. Occasionally shots ring out and kill some of the peasants.
Government agents can't be modelled as rational, thinking animals. When they decide to punish someone, they're like criminals. Criminals victimize their neighbours because they're too lazy to go farther out. Likewise when government feels the need to punish someone, they snipe those under the spotlights because they're handy. The rifle is already pointed in that direction and everything. "Justice was done!" Whatever you need to tell yourself, I guess.
Secondarily, if you really want to pop some poor peasant's cranium, where better to stand than behind the spotlight? Quis custodiet. The government will never look there. Step 1 is always to climb the watchtowers.
Anyone with sense can just not stand in the light. Governments have more blind spots than sight spots, and the spotlights are impossible to miss.
In theory you have to worry about dark-loving bloodsuckers, but almost all of them are attracted to standing behind the spotlights anyway. Only a few lost stragglers out here. That's handy.
Anyone with sense avoids standing in the towers too, because government agents have really bad BO. Absolutely reeks up there. It might be mainly the parasitic infiltrators, but they never get rid of the parasites, and get super mad if you try to do it, so six of one half a dozen etc. Secondarily, competing governments occasionally come and fire (or fire on) everyone in the towers so they can stand there instead. Typically these events will jostle the spotlight, so be careful of them if you're skirting around one.
