2,368 words 
All effective socially engineered programs are designed to be multifaceted in order to appeal to a diverse set of perspectives. The goal of social engineering isn’t to establish the moral high ground, or to only attract the true believers, but rather to manipulate the attitudes of people on a large scale. There are several examples of social engineering that could be referenced to illustrate the point, but one of the best is illegal immigration.
The catalyst driving illegal immigration is capitalism (max profits via cheap labor). Thus, greedy capitalists fund the social engineers who “muddy the waters” by putting various “baits” in the cultural sphere in order to politically and morally polarize an issue that at the causative core essentially has nothing to do with either politics or morality. But if you were to talk to the average American about the illegal immigration issue, you would get some version of divisive tripe, such as, “Democrats are importing voters. Build the Wall!,” or “Borders are racist! Everyone has a right to be an American.” Meanwhile, there are 30 million illegal immigrants, sanctuary states, $150 billion per year in welfare and social services for illegal immigrants, unprecedented demographic change (88% white in 1970s to 57% white today) and citizens are left scratching their heads trying to figure it all out. They end up hashing it out on social media platforms, arguing about whether or not “White people stole America from the Indians” or if “Democrats are the real racists” instead of the fundamental causation. That’s social engineering 101.
Another rather obvious example of systemic social engineering is the promotion and endorsement of the transgender/homosexual movement. Back in 2017, at the beginning of the transgender era, I wrote a piece titled The Trans/Sociopath Overlap, in which I presented the hypothesis that there was a large overlap between transgenders and sociopaths:
When you consider that homosexuals and sociopaths represent roughly the same percentage of the population (about 2% of the U.S. population is homosexual), and exhibit many of the same personality traits and characteristics (narcissism, high suicide rates, Machiavellian, disregard for personal safety, etc) it’s almost analytically impossible to ignore the possibility that there may be a huge overlap between the two groups. In fact, the majority may be one in the same. This observation led me to pose the following hypothesis: All sociopaths are LGBTQ, and most LGBTQ are sociopaths.
It goes without saying that sociopaths are generally bad for a society (although from an evolutionary standpoint sociopathic traits have a reproductive advantage). Sociopaths transitioning into transgenders eliminates that reproductive advantage, and could drastically decrease the number of sociopaths in future generations. I’m not the only one who knows this, people in positions of power are aware of this too.
Interestingly, Google deleted that piece from its original publication source several years after it had been published, which highlights the depths of the systemic collusion that is mandatory for the regulation of nonsensical ideas (modern day book burning). Dissenters who refuse to conform to the new truth are censored, slandered and accused of “spreading misinformation.” That means they really don’t want any negative opinions or views to be accessible to the public, even though it’s blatantly obvious to pretty much everyone that individuals with their souls “trapped” in the wrong body are experiencing a permanent out-of-body experience. If you were permanently trapped in your neighbor’s house, painting the outside a different color doesn’t magically make it your house.
Furthermore, if you were to be examined by a medical professional and you said you were a specific person trapped in the wrong body (e.g. “I’m John Lennon trapped in Jane Doe’s body.”), you would be institutionalized immediately (or at the very least, diagnosed with mental illness and heavily medicated). But as long as the person being held hostage in the wrong body is just the wrong gender, then that’s perfectly understandable. The hostage negotiators (doctors) get called in, and once the ransom is paid, they cut the penis off to liberate her soul. Never mind the fact that every honest doctor knows that scalpels don’t cure psyche issues, instead it actually exasperates psychological distress:
So-called “gender-affirming surgery” could lead to potentially dangerous mental health effects, a new study has found.
Transgender individuals face “heightened psychological distress,” including depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation, “partly due to stigma and lack of gender affirmation,” as stated in the study, which was published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine.
They determined rates of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation and substance-use disorders were “significantly higher” among those who underwent surgery, assessed two years later.
Males with surgery had depression rates of 25% compared to males without surgery (11.5%). Anxiety rates among that group were 12.8% compared to 2.6%.
Just as with the illegal immigration issue, the “powers that be” aren’t ignorant to reality. While collectively many pretend to be, individually they know the same thing that you and I know: transgenders are schizophrenics and homosexuals are sexual deviants. Therefore, the question becomes: Why do they enable and promote LGBTQ if it isn’t a positive for society? The answer to that question is that it does do something positive for society. LGBTQ is a state-sponsored eugenics psyop (cryptoeugenics) designed to bring undesirables out of the closet, and consequently, out of the gene pool.
The innovation of modern medicine has allowed seeds the were to have never sprouted to bear fruit (IVF, fertility surgery, artificial insemination, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, etc). And not only due to leaps and bounds in the medical field, but the massive decline of war and famine, along with the luxuries of modern civilization, have eliminated most of the evolutionary pressures associated with natural selection. These by-products of modernity, combined with technological advancements like automation and AI, are doing the same thing to the human workforce that the cotton gin did to slavery. In other words, kings don’t need armies, factories don’t need workers and the family farm doesn’t need twelve kids to operate.
It’s important to note that there’s a fine line between the correlation of eugenics and depopulation theory. While eugenics (the aim to improve the genetic quality of the human population) and depopulation theory (the aim to reduce the human population) may on the surface seem to be mutually exclusive, they are not. Rather, when merged, they are mutually inclusive. Those in power who are responsible for the social engineering taking place are both eugenicists and depopulationists. To be more precise, cryptoeugenics is the practice to both better the stock and decrease the population simultaneously (quality > quantity).
There are a plethora of reasons behind the motivations for depopulation. Towards the end of the COVID pandemic, I wrote a rather extensive depopulation thesis titled Depopulation for Dummies, that was published on several notable sites, in which I elaborated in great detail on the motivations for depopulation by elites. In the midst of doing so, I developed the following thesis using the Hegelian Dialectic (problem, reaction, solution):
The PTB have scientifically reached the conclusion that human overpopulation has placed the planet in an existential crisis. They’ve determined that if drastic population control measures aren’t enacted soon, irreparable damage to the planet and its ecosystem is inevitable. They intend to address this issue in three phases: 1. Socially-engineered sterilization, 2. Technological escapism, 3. Space Emigration. We are in Phase 1 and on the verge of entering Phase 2.
Before you pass off depopulation as some cooky conspiracy theory, I highly encourage you to read the piece. Not as a solicitation of my work, but because I quoted at least 15 very powerful elites who are on record making statements regarding overpopulation. Including one of the world’s richest men, Jeff Bezos, who founded a company called Blue Origin, in which he predicted that earth will soon become a nature reserve.
Amazon Founder and space explorer Blue Origin owner Jeff Bezos, recently forecasted that Earth will soon become a “natural resort.”
According to a WION report Bezos said, this planet will soon turn into a natural resort because only a few “will be allowed to stay here in the future.”
During the annual Ignatius Forum in Washington DC, the billionaire also said, the Earth is special and “we cannot ruin it.”Talking about Blue Origin, his new firm, Bezos explained the experts are aiming to make sure that millions of people get to not only work in space but be born and call space as their first home, as well.Bezos also explained millions of people will move from Earth to space over time. More so, it is the vision of Blue Origin to make millions of people work in space.
For hundreds of years, he added, most, or many of the people “will be born in space.” It will be these humans’ first home. More so, they will be born in these colonies, not to mention, they will live in such colonies.
These people may visit this planet the way one would visit a national park, forecasted Bezos. He believes the space colonies in the future will have forests, wildlife, and rivers of their own, a similar Republicworld.com report said.
Describing his prediction, Bezos said this planet can support, for example, 10 billion people to a certain level. He elaborated they’d have to work quite hard to find out how to do that without degrading the Earth. Ge added the solar system can “support a trillion people.”Even though the billionaire is relatively positive about taking humanity to space and keeping this planet for a selected few, he was uncertain about claiming who is to decide who’s staying on this planet.
The collaboration of eugenics and depopulation is self-evident when viewed through the lens of motivation. All social movements of relevance require motivation. This is why AI will never take over the world: it lacks the innate sense of motivation to do so. Even the most elementary analysis of the establishment’s promotion of LGBTQ should reveal that it’s something way more sinister than a love for sodomy and schizophrenia. When the emotional charge is extracted from the equation, the only tangible sum of the rainbow pride initiative is negative birth rates.
Certainly there are other arguments to be made regarding the establishment’s endorsement of LGBTQ. It’s definitely not a accident that the rainbow is their banner, and “pride” their mantra. In the Bible, the rainbow serves as a visible reminder of God’s covenant to preserve life on earth (Genesis 9:8-11). And even those who don’t know scripture are aware that anti-pride is one of the central themes of the Bible, illustrated explicitly in the proverb, “Pride goeth before destruction…” (Proverbs 16:18). The irony itself is so overwhelming that the cognitive dissonance leaves you analytically cross-eyed. To the objective observer, this alone should clue you in that something is going on behind the scenes that doesn’t translate into, “We don’t have any ulterior motives, we just love gay people because they’re gay.”
Of course, there is a spiritual component to this. It’s not a coincidence that there is a mockery of Christianity within a sect of the establishment. The blasphemers have their own agenda (they hate Jesus Christ). There’s obviously an element of truth to that. Just as there is an element of truth that some of those who are in favor of illegal immigration support white genocide. As I stated previously, this is an example of sound social engineering. The issue is polarized emotionally and packaged as a badge of honor for the recipient to pin proudly on their chest for all to see. It wouldn’t be social engineering if there wasn’t a smoke screen. The peasantry would understand that greedy capitalists are responsible for lower wages, higher taxes and white genocide. And LGBTQs would realize that they’re being gaslighted into not reproducing, in what is essentially a modern day MK Ultra experiment using homosexuality practices as birth control in place of psychoactive drugs to illicit confessions during interrogations.
The science has concluded that sexuality is fluid. Therefore, contradictory to the accepted idea that sexual orientation is genetic, LGBTQ is a sexual behavior directly attributed to an individual’s free will.
Research indicates that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice but rather a combination of genetic and biological factors. For instance, studies have shown that there are genetic markers associated with sexual orientation, such as the Xq28 region on the X chromosome. However, a large-scale genetic study involving nearly half a million people found no single gene or handful of genes that predict same-sex sexual behavior, suggesting that genetics may have a limited contribution to sexual orientation.
To understand how manipulative social engineers are, read the above cited paragraph carefully. While you’ll certainly catch the obvious contradictory double-speak, notice the mention of “genetic and biological factors,” but no mention of any environmental factors. Yet we know that social engineering is primarily responsible for converting almost 40% of Gen Z (18-24) to LGBTQ. Historically, the percentage of homosexuals within the population has consistently been around 2%. Even if you take the highest estimates, like those of Alfred Kinsey in the 1940s, who estimated that roughly 10% of the population was homosexual (Kinsey was one of the first people to acknowledge sexual fluidity; his methodology was discredited due to disproportionately polling prisoners and male prostitutes), that’s still significantly less that 40%, which is an astonishing figure. What will those numbers be in five years? How about 50 years?
LGBTQ as a cause is social, but as an effect it’s undeniably evolutionary. This raises the question(s): if LGBTQ is in fact a state-sponsored cryptoeugenics psyop, does that change the way you feel about the systemic sponsorship of homosexuality? Should right-wingers start zealously waving the rainbow flag as if we’ve scored an evolutionary touchdown? What if it eliminates 90% of sociopaths from the gene pool, and like abortion did for NYC in the 1990s, drastically reduce murder and overall crime rates? Maybe leftists are right, and the power structure is rooted in white supremacy.
In conclusion, a rational way to objectively analyze the “LGBTQ is a state-sponsored cryptoeugenics” is to ask yourself this: If you wanted to discreetly implement a depopulation by eugenics program that required voluntary participation, and you wanted to attract as many susceptible people as you possibly could, how would you do it?
A wise man once said: you catch more flies with honey than you do vinegar.
29 comments
This website is trying to be two websites at once. One moment it’s punk rocker girls “who run away together, begin a lesbian romance, and start a punk band.” Grrrrl power! Now it’s sobbing about “sexual deviants”. The insincerity is palpable.
Insincerity? Or up till now incoherence?
The author seems to conclude that leftists may have it correct all along: “This raises the question(s): if LGBTQ is in fact a state-sponsored cryptoeugenics psyop, does that change the way you feel about the systemic sponsorship of homosexuality? Should right-wingers start zealously waving the rainbow flag as if we’ve scored an evolutionary touchdown? What if it eliminates 90% of sociopaths from the gene pool, and like abortion did for NYC in the 1990s, drastically reduce murder and overall crime rates? Maybe leftists are right, and the power structure is rooted in white supremacy.”
Funny how Bezos and other space nerds never factor in the rapidly worsening human capital due to population collapse and dysgenics amongst Whites as well as the mass explosion of Africans. Who does he think is going to operate all the tech to achieve what he talks about.
And it won’t be AI as you’ll still need plenty of humans to keep it running.
If anything he should be running a breeding program for the best European Übermensch.
Closet queen (supposedly) Obama went from opposing gay marriage to welcoming gay black celebrities: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/149096-obama-phones-jason-collins-offers-support-after-athlete-admits-hes-gay/.
One of the newly gay-admitting black celebrities that Obama phoned had sired many children to previously prove he was not gay. Once he admitted he was gay, one daughter said he should kill himself, kind of like George V said of one of Kaiser Wilhelm’s gay scandal ridden ministers. Wouldn’t it have been better not have had those children?
The Newsweek link says that 40% of young people identify as LGBT because they’re mentally ill, lonely and looking for community — not because they actually are LGBT. So they’re not really converting to anything.
As for the promotion of LGBT, I think it is just another example of liberalism run amok, rather than any conspiracy to depopulate.
Another reason is that they’ve been sexualized from a very young age, which certainly wouldn’t have flown in prior generations. For one thing, even though my parents are so liberal that it hurts, they wouldn’t have dreamed of taking me to the library groomers, had there been any back then.
Also, in earlier times, same-sex experimentation was discouraged, and when it happened, you didn’t talk about it. If you like it and nothing else turns you on, then you’re gay, but otherwise it was just something you tried once. Now experimentation is encouraged, and it lets you claim an identity that has become a badge of honor.
Finally, one of my friends notes that a lot of young guys hook up with each other since it’s impossible for them to get girlfriends these days. So they’re rather like prisoners in a penitentiary who have to compromise or get nothing at all.
Absolutely correct about the early sexualization. GenZ, and the younger millennials have never known a world where every kind of porn wasn’t available anytime, anywhere.
As for young guys experimenting with each other being more common today, I would take those claims with a grain of salt.
“Gay” needs to rebecome the masculinist Spartan homosexual who’s closet-sized, not parade-sized. From the pictures I’ve seen, gay rights marches in the seventies look more like White nationalist/Patriot Front/Blood Tribe marches now than anything flamboyantly Birdcage stupid.
The Mattachine Society demos from early on put a lot of focus on optics. By now, it’s all changed – anywhere from bad taste to mass public lewdness. It’s not the best way to win hearts and minds.
Correct
I rather doubt that the ruling class wants eugenics – if anything, they want a public that’s dumb, easily manipulated, and too mixed up to have any ethnic identity beyond global citizens who practice mass culture. On one hand, we’re told that AI will take the jobs of everyone who doesn’t make at least $200,000 a year. If you’re very lucky, you’ll be permitted to survive while owning nothing, living in a pod, and eating bugs! On the other hand, we’re told we need a constant flood of low-skilled cheap Third World labor or our economy is doomed. There’s no logic to any of this, but improving the breed isn’t part of the picture.
As far as self-sustaining space colonies go, it’s a pipe dream as long as we’re talking the near future. It would be a lot easier to colonize Antarctica, or create underwater cities. Our launch capabilities presently are just enough to retrieve a couple of dudes stranded in low Earth orbit. This may well change in the more distant future, but not if four billion Africans are permitted to make a zerg rush across the globe because borders are racist.
If Bezos really said what the article attributed to him, he’s gone mad (drunk on his own successes). This planet, what I’ve called here Planet Dysgenica, will not be sending millions into space for many centuries, and, at the rate of global, but especially Western, dysgenic decline, never (or perhaps in a million years, after an entirely new evolutionary cycle).
While I agree with the posited twin goals of breeding a better planetary population (but in particular, white population), as well as reducing nonwhite population overall in the interests of biospherical preservation, the idea that these goals might be informing the behavior of the ruling classes is ludicrous. If they really wanted to put a dent in continuing population growth they would call for immigration restriction everywhere. One of the main drivers of Third World population growth is the mere hope of so many that they can relocate to the West. That belief leads to personal optimism (even among the majority who don’t emigrate), which in turn leads to utopian overshooting of ecological limits on fertility.
And the author’s contention that most sociopaths are LGBTQs is also ridiculous. Does he have any evidence for this astonishing claim? Most sociopaths are underclass blacks. I had no idea most of that class identified as queer (lol!). And my gay neighbor obsessing over his from petunias and rhododendrons is actually a sociopath?
Is there a natural tendency for dissident movements that can’t seem to make any progress in the real, political world to veer off into irrelevant and ever-weirder tangents? Our task is halting white extinction, dispossession and disempowerment by means of educating our people as to racial realities; reawakening pride of race; and then building political movements to advance our racial preservationist and re-empowerment goals. We need to stick to the agenda, however long and hard our slog to racial liberation.
“And the author’s contention that most sociopaths are LGBTQs is also ridiculous. Does he have any evidence for this astonishing claim? Most sociopaths are underclass blacks. I had no idea most of that class identified as queer (lol!). And my gay neighbor obsessing over his from petunias and rhododendrons is actually a sociopath?”
I agree that there is at best a weak correlation, and the author overstates it. I agree with you that there is a strong correlation between Blacks and sociopathy. As far as Blacks being more likely to be Queer, that is true as well. Back in the military, in the days when homosexuals were not allowed, any dalliances in the communal shower late at night spotted by the fire guard were met with immediate removal by the Military Police and then discharge. The White Gays rarely enlisted to begin with, but the Blacks, they don’t tell “the Man” the whole truth about nothing. However, despite the macho preening and raucous Sunday morning worship, I do think that Blacks are somewhat more likely to be Queers than Whites; it is just that they see the concept of “sexual preference” differently. It is more about “muh dick” than LGBTQ. For example, if a very elderly lady is raped and murdered when her apartment was burglarized, you want to start looking for the Jamals and Shawntavious cohort as your prime suspects ─ and they may or may not identify as Straight.
🙂
I hope you don’t mind but I have to steal ‘zerg rush’ for my personal box of quips next time I’m forced to see my raceless family around the holidays. It’s a funny line, but what does it mean?
Basically it’s about overwhelming an opponent via overwhelming numbers. Vide infra:
Zerg Rush – TV Tropes
I’m not sure what this article is saying.
‘The elites are eugenicists who are trying to improve the human condition through LGBT ? And eugenics are …bad ?’
I would say eugenics are good and their policies are dysgenic. Perhaps that’s what the author means, they are trying to create a population that suits them. That is correct. It’s a dysgenic population they want to rule over.
I’m not sure where LGBT comes into this. Do he mean they are trying to put some people off of reproducing who they see as a threat and LGBT is their vehicle for this ?
‘Overpopulation is an elite idea.’
I’m someone who sees overpopulation as real.
Some of the elites happen to be right, albeit they would also depopulate us but it’s mostly just talk as their actual policies are in the opposite direction, growing a dysgenic population through economic growth and globalization.
But if Bill Gates wants to inject his potions into Africans let him.
I think the author is hugely discounting the malevolence of the Left. They really do believe that “Borders be Rayciss” and that Whitey Genocided the Injuns for “Little Houses on the Prairie.”
Yeah, Chamber of Commerce Republicans and Big Business wants open borders and cheap labor.
And the same Neo-Liberal/Libertarian cohort also despise the idea of protective tariffs which worked well until the Depression in the 1930s when the economists formed the new narrative that tariffs somehow caused the Depression, and that Globaloney (and War) saved us.
Well, the tariffs did not work so well immediately prior to the American Civil War, one of the reasons for the secession of the plantation states.
The Northern Abolitionists were using the tariff as an economic weapon against slave states and trying to limit their influence in new territories to control their political base ─ nevermind that pale-faced Pioneers going West were not the Plantation slavocracy.
During the Washington Administration, as the tariff doctrines were first outlined by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in his various “Reports on Taxes & Manufactures,” he encouraged the concept to raise national revenue and to secure the soundness of the national currency, and for promoting domestic manufactures ─ but he specifically did NOT intend for using the tariff as an economic weapon against agricultural states.
I think Trump has the right idea implementing tariffs to end the “giant sucking sound” of Globalism and to bring back some jobs from the Orient ─ but I don’t know if he can implement it correctly and make a difference in the next few years of his administration. I would rather have seen a middle class income tax cut to go along with the new import tariffs to resist inflation since all tax hikes add to inflation.
Furthermore, many of these woke Big Business plutocratic cabals do promote Leftists and even Communist interests, or call them Neo-Conservative/Trotskyite if you want. It is questionable in any case that this cohort actually represents “the Right.”
As far as Mars colonization per Musk and Bezos, that is complete nonsense.
We are at the stage where Columbus has discovered the New World and brought back a small amount of “gold,” but sending colonists to Mars is about a billion times more difficult.
We can barely hold down the research outposts in Antarctica. At best, we might be able to built a research base on the Moon not much larger than the ISS if governments choose to make that a priority and to bear the costs, but I don’t see that happening soon.
Colonizing the Moon and especially Mars is not a Capitalist enterprise. To maintain a base on Mars would at the very least require some quantum leaps in technology ─ cheap turn-key atomic reactors, maybe fusion reactors, atomic or maybe even fusion rocket drives.
Colonists did not bring their supplies with them to the New World; they brought some tools and then they foraged for the resources that were already here.
And if the goody proctors who knew more about the Bible than homesteading, ever got really desperate they could trade some beads and baptism with the Injuns for some turkey and venison.
There is almost nothing on Mars that can be readily used. The same with the Moon, although it is much closer for ferry missions, and solar panels actually will work there, so it might be possible to generate some oxygen, etc. prior to building a bunch of reactors for real work.
The most insidious aspect of this is simply that overpopulation is NOT even a White Man’s problem. It is the copious colored hordes that can’t behave ─ and whose fertility and longevity that we tend to subsidize pathologically. Normalizing any kind of deviances will not help us.
🙂
As Garrett Hardin put it: “Earth is our birthplace and will be our boneyard.” Fantasies about mankind colonizing space as a safety valve for continuing to allow the ecological devastation of the Earth are risible. Contrary to both free marketist and Christian cornucopians (you get both varieties at the WSJ), more does not equal better. It depends on who’s doing the breeding.
I still recall some truly asinine column 4-5 years ago from Christian neocon fixture William McGurn (who was praising immigration in The American Spectator back in the 80s – one of my early clues that the “conservative movement” was not actually very conservative; {fun project: whenever encountering a white immigrationist, check out that person’s ethnicity, and then, after a year, total up how many such persons were neither Jews nor Fenians}) alleging that there was no need to worry about overpopulation in general, and the African population explosion in particular, because humans are “ingenious” and innovative, and that more people means more people working to solve mankind’s problems. We’ve always solved our population/environment problems in the past, right? (Problem: who was the we then, and who will be the we in the future?)
White preservationists need to tie together all three areas of analysis: racialism, eugenics, and population ecology. From that perspective, the wellbeing of future whites does not look promising. I guess I should be glad I’m 63 and not 23, given that we all have to live our lives within some span of time, and time machines have not been invented.
I agree with most of what you’ve written but why ruin it with your Eeyore coping? There’s a civilization to salvage here and your (or my) comfort in our declining years is not a relevant metric.
We like to make fun of Bezos and Musk with colleagues. These two always have something stupid to laugh at.
There was a televised launch by Blue Origin where some dumb and clueless TV reporters chatted for about an hour while the rocket was being fuelled with liquid oxygen. They didn’t know what they were talking about, and the whole act was frustrating. Eventually, the launch went awry after several seconds, and the crew emergency capsule was ejected. The reporters acted as if it was a success. “See? They have a functioning emergency system!” 🙂
“Trillions in space” is ridiculous crap, of course, unless it means trillions of dollars. The only celestial bodies where bases are somewhat conceivable are the Moon, Mars and Callisto. Maybe Titan. Venus and Mercury are too hostile. Ganymede, Io and Europa are in radiation belts. Other planets and moons are either too distant, too harsh or not large enough.
And anyway, people are not going to live in tin cans in the midst of some extremely hostile environment, even if we assume that it is somehow possible to create them in the first place. And it would just cost too much to be a viable project.
But we surely can send all billionaires to live in space. That would fulfill their dreams of space exploration and solve a lot of our problems.
As for the Moon, there is an additional incentive to build a base. There are huge deposits of ³He, which is a great thermonuclear fuel and very rare here. But they don’t seem to be occupied with thermonuclear.
Yeah, I would like to see a robot lander on Callisto for that very reason ─ the radiation levels are low enough that you could have a boots-on-the-ground mission some day. One day that would be fine for Mars and maybe Titan too, and a memorable accomplishment for the nations involved ─ but you are not going to see any bases or colonies any time soon.
Space exploration is mostly about discovery and scientific progress, and the later Apollo missions were actually doing important experiments. It is quite a shame that the later Apollo missions were cancelled.
I don’t really agree with the thesis that the public was bored with “Whitey on the Moon” by the time of Apollo 12 in November of 1969. I was in school for the Apollo 12 launch and missed it, and later in the week on a school night at about 5 AM the Moonwalks occured, which I also missed, so the timing was not ideal in the United States.
Then ─ and this is the real reason that nobody remembers Apollo 12 ─ shortly after Astronauts Conrad and Bean were walking on the surface, when Bean removed the new color TV camera from the ladder to mount on a pole, there was no lens cap on the camera so the bright sunlight burned up the vidicon tube when it got pointed a shiny surfaces.
When I was a broadcasting engineer in the late 1980s there were still a few tube-type cameras that you had to be careful about in this way, but mostly these had been replaced by chip cameras which were more robust. During the 1991 eclipse in Idaho, for example, I was able to photograph it for local broadcast directly with a TV news camera and a basic filter.
Having good Space video for the public was an afterthought with Apollo 11, but it soon became a priority for later missions. Apollo 11 had a color TV camera in the Columbia space capsule but only a rugged B&W version on the lunar surface and a cobbled slow-scan TV system that was less than ideal due to the limited microwave bandwidth available on the Lunar Module.
Having a color camera for the lunar surface (Apollos 12, 14, and especially the later missions with a camera mounted on the Rover for Apollos 15, 16, 17) was a huge leap in technology that had earlier been considered lower priority.
In 1969, as a Cub Scout, I was part of the studio audience in a local children’s program regularly broadcast live in Tucson, Arizona and the studio color TV cameras in use then were the size of small refrigerators.
Anyway, if space exploration nowadays is going to be marketed as Diversity in Space, then I don’t think very much is going to get done. I’d like to see the budget doubled and more robots being sent out.
There is a possibility that some form of extraterrestrial life exists in the warm underground ocean of Europa, if there was a way to send a robot lander in that could bore through the ice. All of the Jovian moons merit robot landers.
Of course, I hope that a new manned mission goes to the Moon soon, and eventually (probably not in my lifetime) some boots-on-the ground trips to Mars, Callisto, maybe Titan. But colonies and terraforming in the near future ain’t gonna happen.
Anti-technology types seem to think that men were only landed on the Moon in the first place for propaganda purposes (assuming they don’t think that it was a Hoax) and that the Earth is going to be treated as a garbage dump for the little people, with the rich sailing away to space paradise. This is anarcho-Leftist nonsense, of course.
🙂
Well, I think the initial motives for lunar landings were almost 100% political, military and propagandistic. When it turned out that military bases couldn’t be established there, politicians dropped it. That’s more about money than public attitude.
And in 1969, America was a much better country than now. It was possible to get support for a noble cause, while now social networks addicts would forget about it in a week. Let alone some 10 year expedition. Kennedy could hope to have lunar landings while in the office, at least. Current American politicians won’t spend money on something they can’t capitalise on during their term.
I would love to visit the Moon, Mars, Callisto, Titan, Io and Europa myself – all of them, if the flight took reasonable time, not 10-15 years. These are magnificent and beautiful places, although some would require 1000 lb lead suits to protect you from radiation. 🙂
The missions there would be made possible if we stopped wasting resources on parasites. If not for WWI or Germany’s defeat in WWII, it could already be underway. It will be a great project when we free our countries.
There are speculations about possibility of life on Europa, Titan and Enceladus, but they are not convincing at all. Radiation would split sufficiently complex organic compounds there quite fast. Even deep below their surfaces, it’s too harsh. And if some life exists there, I fear for its well-being. At least, we shouldn’t allow Haitians anywhere near, or they would just eat all Europa inhabitants. 🙂
This fad to search for life, especially intelligent, everywhere was established by SETI, Sagan, Drake (not a pirate, but also a troublesome man) et al. We don’t know even if intelligent life exists on the Earth! (And we can be sure that all the aliens in about 25 light years vicinity ran away after exposure to South Park on air.)
As for terraforming, it has its problems. For example, the Moon would lose about half of its atmosphere in 20000 years. Not sure about Mars, but likely it’s about 100 thousand – 1 million years. To have 1 bar pressure, Mars would need about 3,75-4,5 quadrillion tonnes of air. That means we need to release about 2-20 billion tonnes of nitrogen and oxygen each year just to maintain atmosphere on Mars! It’s better than giving money to blacks, but also a burden.
This is a very strange article. I would expect something like this more in the lying mainstream media or at a university where they try to defend the indefensible and where they very much avoid the Jewish question. Jews traditionally supported prostitution, today they are disproportionately represented in pornography and dysgenic projects. Jews have supported LGBT and especially transsexuality since the days of Magnus Hirschfeld. I highly recommend the articles Oppression by Orgasm? by Kenneth Vinther on this site. And Andrew Joyce’s article Magnus Hirschfeld’s Racism at The Occidental Observer.
I almost wish this was true. It would be a better world if our elites were secretly trying to improve humanity genetically. But I think reality is closer to the opposite.
I don’t think the super-rich have some grand, subtle long-term plan. The elites (Jewish and Goyim) don’t function so much as a refined organization, but rather are a mob that moves spontaneously, driven by their predatory instincts. This is actually worse for us because there is no super-center to destroy, shut down or control. The elites are more like swarms of bees or systems of anthills or colonies of coral and fungi.
The hive mentality is certainly a common feature of the elite. It’s one of the reasons why reformism eventually dies in democracies. Unless there is a state of exception, the system proceeds as dictated by the sensibilities of the elite. There was an interesting video (by Morgoth if I recall correctly) where a thesis from a research paper claimed that the origin and elite support for a political proposition would dictate its success regardless of an objective merit. A particularly thought-provoking observation regarded the influence of lower class support on depressing the attitude of the upper class even despite their own support for the proposition. It appears that bipartisanship doesn’t exist outside the elite.
Meritocracy had been dead long before multi-racialism was even introduced.
The vast sociopath/trans overlap doesn’t sound convincing even though the issue of predatory grooming created a narrative about a primary motivation of trans-activists to manipulate the youth. Still, there’s a distinction between activism that naturally attracts power-hungry individuals and people struggling with their own sexuality due to a variety of reasons. I recall some observations made on positive correlation between autistic traits and gender dysphoria, but no claim that the former is causing the latter. Perhaps there’s an amplification of self-identity issues that might lead to problems with acceptance of one’s sexuality and body that could lead to embracing transgenderism.
I’m not really sold on the eugenic angle. That is an interesting perspective to take as similar hypotheses are being put forth when examining the personal preferences of white progressives when it comes to living and education as opposed to their ideas on race. However, like in the case of racial integrationists, there’s not enough evidence to claim that the political efforts are undertaken with a conscious desire to harm the reproduction prospects of the “dead-weights”. For one, social engineering isn’t really required for depressing the fertility across the board. Material prosperity handles that field well enough. When it comes to areas struck by poverty, social engineering doesn’t seems to do much as we haven’t heard of the most backward areas of the globe inching to become gay. Importing them into the First World appears to be self-defeating unless there’s some clever plan to turn Europe and North America into shredders for the Third World surplus fertility. It doesn’t seem to work, given the economic structure of immigration and the demographic projections for black Africa.
When taking a look at the promotion of transgenderism, the aspirational and prestigious aspects immediately come to attention. Just like the previous embrace of homosexual lifestyle, the marketing element always finds its way in into every campaign which attempts to portray the trans-individual as trendy and beautiful in its own right. It’s associated more with a middle-to-upper class sensibilities and hardly seen as a thing for the rubes, like most social fads. Again, not too many lower class people across the world getting on the queer train.
In the end it’s better to look at it as it promotes itself and the most receptive demographics towards it. Hardly a tool to cleanse the gene-pool unless we consider the upper and middle classes as the most aberrant genetically (maybe the plan is to simply reset people into a New Middle Age with a complete deterioration of medicine and food production?). The strange-looking gender-non-conforming thugs from outfits like Antifa aren’t recruited from the working classes either, unless we’ve been fed false information about their pedigrees. Like other fads preceding it, the transgenderism is being promoted by the same cultural gatekeepers who shield the prevailing consensus from biology. The last gasps of the ideological age as it declines along with its foremost heralds. Probably the most frightening realization is that there’s no plan, but an increasingly degenerating leadership that indulges in their own forms of escapism as they have no answer for the upcoming crises.
“In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” – Winston Spencer Curchill
Galton et al had a plan but for it to work none but a select few could ever know what it was.
The main premise of the article is bollux, which the author seems to concede towards the end. Sexuality, like everything else when it comes down to it, is a choice. The people who run society are not geniuses; they are just smart enough to get into positions of power. But the power they exert has no rhyme or reason behind it except to funnel it into fewer and fewer hands at the top. Do Bezos, Jobs, Gates, et. al., those masters of the universe who had wholesome, traditional white families while publicly promoting a sexual deviant agenda really believe their kids will be insulated from the filth they had a large part in creating? These people are just along for the ride on a trip to hell.
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.