1,715 words
In terms of collective survival, whites are in a no-win situation where no favorable outcome is possible, laws and mores against genocide, racism, and discrimination notwithstanding. We are bound to lose no matter what we do as long as we continue to adhere to the enemy’s rules. The longer we wait, the worse things get. As in certain movies and suspense novels, there is a ticking clock. The fact that Jews, other elites, and government hysterically scream “white racism” and “anti-Semitism” 24 hours a day is irrelevant. “White racism” is as big a falsehood as their own much-trumpeted “anti-racism.” Both are instances of the Big Lie.
How can one deal with such a no-win situation? An option suggested by contemporary fiction is the Kobayashi Maru solution.
The Scenario
The Kobayashi Maru Scenario was a plot element in the film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (Paramount Pictures, 1982), a training exercise in the fictional Star Trek universe designed to test the character of command-track cadets at Starfleet Academy in the 23rd century.
Star Trek is a multibillion dollar American science fiction entertainment franchise owned by the Jewish Redstone family’s (Sumner Redstone and his daughter Shari Redstone) CBS Television Studios. The original Star Trek TV series (NBC, 1966-1969), created by white TV producer Gene Roddenberry, is one of the most successful and culturally influential television series of all time. It has spawned five successor TV shows, twelve theatrical films, novels, comic books, magazines, video games, and assorted merchandise.
In the 1960s Roddenberry had an affair with Negro actress Nichelle Nichols while still married to his first wife. In a casting couch decision, Roddenberry cast Nichols as a guest star on his first TV series, The Lieutenant (1964), in an anti-white episode that NBC reportedly refused to air or even pay for. (Different era!) Nichols’ role as Lieutenant Uhura aboard the USS Enterprise was also the result of this prior sexual relationship. Establishment commentators hail her casting as a cultural milestone in the race war against white America.
In the Kobayashi Maru simulation from The Wrath of Khan, the cadet being tested commands a Federation (good-guy) spaceship sent to the aid of another Federation vessel, the Kobayashi Maru. The disabled ship is adrift in the Klingon (bad-guy) Neutral Zone, and any Starfleet ship entering the zone will be in violation of treaty and liable to attack.
The cadet commander must decide whether to attempt to rescue the stranded ship, precipitating an all-out war with the Klingons and jeopardizing his own vessel and crewmates’ lives in the process, or leave the Kobayashi Maru to certain destruction. If the cadet attempts to save the crippled vessel, the simulation, unbeknownst to him, is programmed to guarantee that his own ship will be destroyed with all hands on board. Not only will he be unsuccessful in saving the Kobayashi Maru, but everyone else will die as well. The object is to test the cadet’s character and presence of mind in the face of large-scale disaster and certain death.
In the entire history of Starfleet Academy, only one cadet, James T. Kirk (the central character in the Star Trek series) ever beat the no-win scenario. After taking the test and failing it twice, Kirk surreptitiously reprogrammed the computer to make victory certain before taking it a third time and passing. He was awarded a commendation for “original thinking.”
US Military & Security Application
Two real-life military instructors, James Caroland, a Navy Information Warfare Officer, member of the US Cyber Command, and adjunct Associate Professor in the University of Maryland’s Cybersecurity Program, and Greg Conti (note the Trojan horse symbolic of covert infiltration in the photo on his personal web page), an associate professor at West Point’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and director of its Cyber Security Research Center, developed an exercise inspired by the Kobayashi Maru Scenario intended to teach their students in the Joint Advanced Cyber Warfare Course to cheat.
Their “American” military students, of course, were a motley crew—male and female, homosexual and lesbian, belonging to every race under the sun. At least one was Chinese.
The instructors described their exercise in a 4-page article published in an issue of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEEE Security and Privacy (“Embracing the Kobayashi Maru: Why You Should Teach Your Students to Cheat,” July/August 2011), and a 20-minute joint lecture, “Lessons of the Kobayashi Maru: Cheating is Fundamental” delivered to an audience of 1,800 attendees at the ShmooCon 2012 hackers convention in Washington, DC.
The fixation on cheating should not come as a surprise. Government and the Left routinely display contempt for law in matters pertaining to genocide, “hate speech,” civil liberties, anti-white racism and discrimination, replacement migration, or the framing, railroading, and even murder (the Weavers) of Holocaust revisionists and white nationalists. Not to mention what goes on overseas. Laws and administrative rules are arbitrary and capricious, to be used or trampled upon as needed.
What the authors write about their own team (the government) is actually more pertinent to us:
Adversaries cheat. The good guys don’t. . . . But the dissonance between how our adversaries operate and how we teach our students puts our students at a distinct disadvantage when faced with real-world opponents who inevitably don’t play by the rules. Breaking through the paradigm where students self-censor their ways of thinking to a new archetype that cultivates an effective adversarial mindset is both necessary and possible. . . . [A] devious mind is equally as important as a beautiful one.
Their test involved a deliberately unfair examination. On short notice students were required to write down the first 100 digits of the mathematical constant pi (3.14159 . . .), the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter, from “memory.” In actuality, the students were informed ahead of time that they were not expected to memorize the impossibly long string of random digits, but rather to cheat. How students cheated was entirely up to them. Collaborative cheating was encouraged. But anyone caught cheating would fail the test. A prize was offered to whoever exhibited the most creative and effective technique. To increase the stress level, instructors strolled about the classroom during the examination.
You can read their article or listen to their lecture to learn the various stratagems people devised. Evidently students are permitted to have a surprisingly large number of objects on their desks during exams. When I was a student you had the test, your pen or pencil, and nothing else.
My personal favorite: someone memorized and wrote down the first ten digits of pi followed by a string of 90 completely random numbers, relying (correctly, it turned out) on the carelessness of the teachers, who did not actually check the answers. Simple and elegant. The other methods were all more complicated and time-consuming. Indeed, many students not only wrote out all 100 digits on “cheat sheets” of one sort or another, but encoded them as well.
The authors make a point highly relevant to whites under the gun from Jews, government, the media, academia, and the Left: “It’s because of our inherent and unconscious trust that we leave ourselves open to exploitation.” Using this behavioral trait, the FBI’s COINTELPRO program in the 1960s wreaked havoc among whites opposed to integration, thereby radically altering the course of history and contributing to the biological destruction of our race
Of course, a balance must be struck to foster the trust needed for genuine camaraderie and effective cooperation, and to create the basis for a healthy new order in the future. We do not want to reproduce anything like the present criminal system or its fraternal twin, Communism.
Exploiting “predictability and patterns” is also relevant, because anyone who studies Jews—in order to do so properly you must have an open mind with no psychological, emotional, or devotional hang-ups or mental blocks preventing you from seeing them objectively—cannot fail to notice that they use the same methods of aggression over and over again. They are successful, apparently, because their victims, who are invariably less dominant than themselves, have their own patterns and predictableness that Jews effortlessly exploit.
In addition, before Jews act, they usually have overwhelming, indeed staggering, force and the backing of authority on their side, as was the case with their secret assassination of Palestinian Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in Dubai in 2010, executed to look like a natural death, but which was exposed, publicly, after an impressive in-depth investigation by the emirate’s Arab police chief. Yet Jewish media control and influence over the world’s governments insured that the killing quickly disappeared down the memory hole—forever.
So many, many forgotten victims.
The Dilemma
Wrath of Khan’s director and uncredited script doctor Nicholas Meyer, the son of a Manhattan psychoanalyst and a concert pianist, is yet another of the millions of poor, persecuted Jews who overcrowd the top ranks of the West’s governments, media, academia, think tanks, and multibillion dollar hedge funds.
Meyer had not seen a single episode of Star Trek, or the first film, Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Paramount Pictures, 1979), when he was brought on board. He said, “The chief contribution I brought to Star Trek II was a healthy disrespect, irreverence. I didn’t insist that Captain Kirk go to the bathroom, but did Star Trek have to be so sanctified?”
What a rebel.
In response to fans’ complaints that Captain Kirk “cheated” in order to pass the Kobayashi Maru test, Meyer responded that cheating revealed an aspect of Kirk’s character, and that the film, or Kirk, shouldn’t be restricted by “television mentality.” One is reminded of the Israeli Mossad’s governing motto: “By way of deception, thou shalt do war.”
The dilemma that whites who care about the plight of their people, and who can think independently—precious few!—must resolve soon is what to do about the rules of the present no-win situation their murderous foes have shackled them with. Accept them meekly and die, or fight back in ways that make sense?
As military instructors Conti and Caroland noted approvingly: “Famously, Captain Kirk beat the scenario, and this is important, by stepping outside the game and altering its rules to his benefit. By deciding to cheat and alter the program driving the exercise, he won the contest.”
Or, as Captain Kirk himself put it: “I don’t like to lose. I don’t believe in no-win scenarios.”
15 comments
Glad someone else picked up on this. Very true.
This is the main problem with US culture, its Wall-to-Wall jewish! Hollywood, TV, comics, Evangelicals, political and intelectual movements are ALL KOSHER.
White Americans don’t have a cultured their own, everything has been judaized.
Yes we must cheat. Even Krishna advises this in the the Mahabharata war. He explains the Evil Ones are too powerful to be defeated by ordinary means. This is our Ace in the Hole: Evil expects Good to fight by the Queensbury rules. So we come out in classic boxing style and then deliver a savate kick to the jewels. We must understand the difference between contest and combat. There are no rules in the latter. But we go on pretending that we haven’t learned.
After the Battle of Kurukshetra is over, one of few remaining evil ones complains to Krishna. Krishna calls him a hypocrite and reminds him that the Pandavas had been willing to accept one village each to rule over as befitted them as Aristocrats. Durodhyana had replied they would not get a needle point’s worth of land. They had wanted War and He rewarded them according to their desire.
A couple of the tricks: One of the Pandavas calls out “Abhimanu is dead” and then qualifies with a whisper, “Abhimanu the elephant”. Abhimanu’s father charges out to his doom.
Krishna had promised not to fight saying “You can either have me as a peaceful ally or my Kinsmen the Vrishnis as combatants. Durodhyana eagerly takes the warriors and Arjuna gladly took Krishna. Yet during the battle Arjuna (if I remember right) calls out for help and Krishna enters the fray.
Thank you Mr. Hamilton for this. I really liked that video. I am still laughing at some of the innovative things these students thought up. The real world is messy for sure.
You cheat against the out-group. The military has the enemy as the pre-defined out group; YKW has the goyim. So the strategy outlined requires (sort of begs the question of ) whites developing strong in-group/out-group dynamics.
“A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.” US Military Academy code of conduct…
Of course, the instructors could claim this exercise is not really about cheating, but instead thinking outside the box, or exploiting deception in warfare (ala Sun Tzu), or whatever. Still, there is something disconcerting about an institution–the US military–which has in the past seemed to have upheld certain ideals re honor.
They issue several disclaimers that they aren’t really teaching cheating, that it is intended as a limited exercise only.
But look at the unqualified nature of the titles they choose: “Why You Should Teach Your Students to Cheat” and “Cheating is Fundamental.” They know the meaning of words.
Conti has the Trojan horse model behind him in the photo on his web page.
Conti says he tried to persuade the West Point brass to expand the program to all plebes, but they were unwilling to do so. “Perhaps in the future.”
Near the end of the video, someone in the audience asks whether the authors have considered that they might be teaching students to cheat more broadly, overall. The question is relayed by Conti at the podium to Caroland (the blond one with the buzz-cut) who, like a typical devious, lying politician, government bureaucrat, or intellectual, answers another question instead. He does not look or sound devious, but he is behaving deviously.
There is no way around it, they are advocating cheating.
Two notes:
Halfway through the movie, when Admiral Kirk finally shares with an insistent Lieutenant Saavik how he handled the the Kobayashi Maru test, Kirk explains that he reprogrammed the simulation to make it possible to win.
Saavik is shocked and disappointed: “You cheated.”
Kirk replies, “I changed the conditions of the test. I don’t believe in the no-win scenario.”
This essay accepts Saavik’s somewhat judgmental reading of Kirk’s response to the Kobayashi Maru as ‘cheating’.
Kirk doesn’t consider it cheating. He rejects the premise of the test and his novel solution to the KM problem earns him a commendation from the Academy for original thinking. This means that both he and his superiors don’t regard his actions as a ‘cheat’.
I think there’s also a point to be made here about the Spartans, who used similar tests to develop character and wit.
However, Saavik and Kirk see the test very differently. I think what makes Wrath of Khan so satisfying is that a third point of view is brought in. The film ends with Spock, and hence Kirk, facing a ‘no-win’ scenario that cannot be gamed. Someone must die because of circumstance, and no amount of metis on the part of Kirk can ‘cheat death’. He is finally faced with the no-win scenario, which he admits in a conversation in one of the final scenes. Wrath of Khan not only gives him a paunch and presbyopia, it forces him finally into adult life and consciousness in middle age. There are situations that cannot be thought, or fought, out of.
In discussing the film, people go back and forth about whether or not Kirk “cheated,” some taking Saavik’s (played by actress Kirstie Alley) view, others Kirk’s.
In terms of taking an examination he clearly cheated. The reason we admire what he did is not because he cheated—displayed a kind of low-level cleverness—but, as you say, that he rejected the premises of the test and acted accordingly: a highly principled form of behavior.
Similarly, we reject the premises of the existing order. That is why the analogy works.
I understand why you think that “This essay accepts Saavik’s somewhat judgmental reading of Kirk’s response to the Kobayashi Maru as ‘cheating’.”
While researching the topic I discovered the existence of Caroland’s and Conti’s test, which I had not known about. (Research has a way of throwing curves at you like that.) It was so relevant that I had to include it. And their test was about cheating.
Personally, though, I reject society’s premises, its rules of the game designed to insure our genocide, just as in the movie. But the people in charge today lie, cheat, torture, assassinate, and kill thousands, even millions, to get what they want.
Clearly most whites, including the vast majority of WNs, have not fully come to grips with this fact, psychologically or emotionally. Either they aren’t truly serious about white survival, or they have not thought realistically about the nature of the enemy and what will be necessary to defeat him.
Anyone who plays by his rules will certainly lose, just as in the movie.
If we’re to win, we must be more devious, more designing, more devilish than the enemy.
Not necessarily. We’re not in a no-win scenario,actually, but an Indian monkey-trap. All we have to do is, like Kirk, reject the premise of the scenario,i.e., that we must stick our hand in the too-tiny hole in the box to get a tasty treat. In my view, the trap is an illusion. It’s only a trap if you accept the premise.
Alternately, you could say it’s more serious than that. You could say it’s like a gangrenous finger that we must amputate to save the hand. Still, I consider the “trade-off” an illusion. There’s no saving the finger. It’s worth nothing to us. So there’s no sense in keeping it. There is no drawback, as one way or the other we will lose the finger.
These analogies, of course, refer to power and “self-government” and our lives as we know them in the Age of ZOG.
If you accept their version of what it means to be a citizen of your country in 2014, you are lost. You will be a shit-eating slave. Better to reject this and become a despised and outcast pauper,for you will be richer than all those who accepted the premise for the reward of handling some money or enjoying social status before they take it all away from them.
It’s a worm on a hook.
Once you bite on it, you’re dinner.
Or, in the words of the well-known meme:
“The cake is a lie”
Harold Covington, as usual, said it best when he noted the Child-like thinking of the self-proclaimed leaders of self-defined White nationalism.
Loosely paraphrasing:
“Somehow, our self-proclaimed leaders seem to think that we can play THEIR Game, by THEIR RULES, and. somehow, magically, win. Like Children, they seem to have no grasp of history, and no interest in developing one. The correct answer is to play OUR Game, by OUR Rules. Until we start doing that, we can only look forward in shame at the moment we met our Ancestors, and they ask us: why were you so naieve? THEY defined the Game, THEY defined the RULES. they chose the Referees – themselves – and still, you chose to play THEIR Game, by THEIR Rules. After all we did – the expenditure of lifetimes – to get you to where you could Do Better then we did.”
A first step is to contribute to counter-currents, each and every month, without fail.
The decline and potential future extinction of white civilization is largely due to our capitulation to comfort, money and an effeminized Jewish (matriarchal, anti-militarist) culture. We became the victims of semitic guile by bending over on command. When I read the essay, I was reminded of the contrast between ancient Athens and Sparta. The Spartan youth were raised under an austere regimen designed to produce, not intellectuals and bankers, but ruthless warriors whose lives were completely devoted to their city state.
After WWII, the American male sold out to Wall Street and Madison Avenue. He eventually morphed into the neo-homo metrosexual who lacks the fortitude to fight for anything, except perhaps his right to cable television and iphones. Unless we revive a culture of militaristic masculinity along with a new mythology of heroism based on racial fidelity, there is no hope because without fighters, there can be no revolution.
Perhaps the coming age of austerity will trigger something deep, dark and primeval in the delicate psyche of the white millennials.
Unless we revive a culture of militaristic masculinity along with a new mythology of heroism based on racial fidelity, there is no hope because without fighters, there can be no revolution.
Good point, and we do need a cultural renaissance as well as political action. One of the reasons for the popularity of the movie “Fight Club” was that it evoked just such a mythos, albeit in a dark satirical fashion.
A phenomenon which might be worth analyzing (as long as science fiction is on the table) is the two versions of the “Battlestar Galactica” series: the original, with its heroic theme of uber-warriors leading the remnant human race; and the re-imagining, set in a darker universe and with flawed characters who stumble from crisis to crisis.
One thing that has helped me is to think like our ancestors who flew under the Raven Banner and fully adopt the Raven as one’s fylgja (spirit animal or mascot). Our ancestors revered the raven for the ability to fly above the raging battle and then to feed on the carcasses in the aftermath. The raven has a brain-to-body ratio equivalent to dolphins and chimpanzees and uses it’s intelligence not to assimilate or dominate the herd but to thrive separately, among its own or independently.
I recently saw an enormous hawk flying overhead looking for nests and small birds to feed on. All the birds scattered for shelter except two large crows who flew right up to the hawk, mocking and pecking at it. It is going to take a lot of unwinding to disentangle ourselves from all the Zionist spider webs and reach the point where we can simply laugh them off but it is more than possible. Norway, Iceland, the Amish and Orania give me hope. I for one intend to endure the coming mess and position myself to profit in the aftermath.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.