Another list of sincere insults

 Pseudo-intellectuals first seek to convince themselves that they are true intellectuals, especially when they are unaware of what they are or what they are not, and they usually are not. This theater or performance of appearance begins in the mirror itself.

The problem is not that bad art exists, but that it is elevated to the heights that should be reserved exclusively for high culture.

Ideologically fanatical individuals are at similar levels of insanity to untreated psychotic individuals. Perhaps the biggest difference between them is that, while typical psychosis causes subjective discomfort, atypical psychosis, generated by ideological indoctrination, has the completely opposite effect and, therefore, can perhaps be considered even more dangerous...

Regarding the mimicry of opportunistic or parasitic strategies in nature and extrapolation to the human geopolitical context:

The same situation, of one species deceiving another, posing as itself, invading its living space, usually that of a social species, and taking advantage of this deception to benefit. So, this opportunistic mimicry also occurs in the Western world, where a certain tribe of "chosen ones" poses as "native whites" to do exactly what is perceived in the natural environment...

Deception, usurpation, exploitation, even the destruction of the host species...

But make no mistake, because this type of parasitism has been characteristic of every complex society or civilization...

The example of this tribe was only used because it is an accurate manifestation of this type of mimicry in a human context.

If the right produces constructive shit and the left destructive shit, it is because the right's shit is more moral than structural, while the left, in trying to deconstruct this structure, ends up destroying it—the only structure that exists.

How to think rationally with an example:

First, ask fundamental questions about the topic. For example, "racism."

Who is defining these or those concepts?

(Who is defining the concept of racism? Ans: Ideologically biased individuals and/or groups...)

How objective and precise are these definitions?

(Ans: The concept of racism has not been defined in the most objective way because it has been done so vaguely, leaving room for confusion with other types of behavior or tendencies, for example, the confusion between personal taste and racial prejudice, or between negative opinion and negative generalization.)

But how do we define objectivity when it comes to an abstract construct?

(Ans: Precisely because it is an abstract construct, the concept of racism should be as strict as possible, the most objective way to define an abstraction. For example, my concept of it, as a generalization between behavior and race or ethnicity, "everyone in group X is like that," for example.)

The level of subjectivity in an aesthetic judgment depends on what is being compared. For example, comparing French (standard or Parisian) with Polish will inevitably result in the conclusion that the former is more aesthetically pleasing than the latter, if Polish seems to have a constant hissing sound, while French sounds more elaborate and, therefore, more sophisticated. It would be like comparing a beautiful flower to a blade of grass on the ground...

It seems common for those who define themselves as "independent" to be essentially stingy individualists.

"There is no absolute truth"

The denial of the existence of absolute truths is a declaration of absolute truth...

The vast majority of moral arguments are essentially emotional blackmail. But some blackmail is "better" or fairer and more objective than others.

Those who leave the "flock" of a traditional religion—that is, those who leave a typically religious ideological indoctrination but end up becoming very ideologically biased "progressives"—have merely exchanged one indoctrination or brainwashing for another...

The influence of the environment on human intelligence is only more significant, but never absolute, during the first formative years, of immersion in basic education, while biological or genetic influence becomes progressively significant the higher the level of complexity of knowledge, as it expresses more purely vocational aspects. It's basically the difference between learning to read and write and directing one's own interests at a much more complex and/or specific level.

The right is more about aggression and homicide, and the left is about immolation and suicide. If the traditional right has historically been a force of oppression and destruction, it has been more about attacking those it considers threats, but never, or primarily, itself.

While the left, especially the identitarian left, currently dominant in Western nations, has acted as a self-destructive or implosive force.

Culture is not the cause of human behavior, but one of its effects.

Old-school or classically trained actors (obviously) resemble classical dancers more than modern actors because they are also products of a system that prioritizes (or prioritized) talent over appearance. Currently, the most talented actors tend to be those who work in theater, precisely because it is a remnant of their profession's past, since theater continues to prioritize talent over appearance...

On expressions or statements that have aged poorly

"Class consciousness"

It has progressively become synonymous with hypocrisy and ideological fanaticism.

Indoctrination has a neutral or essential meaning and a pejorative meaning. In a neutral sense, it is any doctrine followed by an individual or group. Every culture has its indoctrination, its modus operandi, if no culture survives without a doctrine. Indoctrination, in a pejorative sense, is the opposite of education, because the former consists of transmitting information according to the wishes of the authorities who hold the power to transmit it, and not based on more objective, impartial, or rational criteria. Education, ideally, is the practice of wisdom itself.

Much of what is commonly called "the left" boils down to emotional blackmail and supposed good intentions.

Those who put "kindness" before knowledge also put ignorance before it.

Kindness without knowledge is no different from evil with knowledge.

The rational artist is a rare bird. Most artists are rationally idiots.

Intellectually pedantic and politically fanatical individuals are literally insufferable.

A narrative is an event, situation, or phenomenon described in the language of feeling. And therefore, it tends to be expressed imprecisely or even as a distortion of the facts.

The "right's" contempt for the carnage against the Palestinian people is its most predictable pattern

 Not that there is always a right side of history, preferably the left, as many so-called progressives seem to think. Far from it. But it's also a fact that having the "rotten finger" to choose the "wrong side" has been a very common habit of the right. And if there is a ''right side," it always faces where the facts point. For example, the systematic slaughter perpetrated against the Palestinian people by the state of Israel, in which a large part of the Western "right" has been co-opted to support its executioners (not to mention a large part of the Establishment). But not only co-opted, because people who identify as conservatives actually tend to support groups they consider stronger rather than siding with weaker groups in a context of conflict. And it doesn't matter if they are "Aryan" Nazis or "untermenschen" Jews, as long as they are identified as "powerful" and ideologically aligned, and this trend is very likely to continue.

New daring

 "Ridiculous (expensive) branded clothes and accessories"

For capitalism to work, there always needs to be a sucker;

A misfit is not the same as a sick person;

The cowardly "right", but also any kind of very soft opposition, sugarcoats the pill so much to criticize the "left", that it ends up swallowing the pill

Since the conservative "right" lost its cultural hegemony to the identitarian-bourgeois "left" in the Western world, "right-wing wimps" have become increasingly common, types that come to partially endorse the predominant beliefs and thoughts (which turn into behaviors) typical of the other side, as a reflection of ideological submission to the current holders of power, via culture//morality, in turn induced by a more deep-rooted impetus, of this group, to adapt to the environment. Some examples: "defending a country (Israel) and a people (Jews) in a completely uncritical manner, that is, the same "people" (without generalizing) that have led the structural destitution of conservatism in the core of Western culture...; endorsing so-called "progressive" beliefs, such as denying the existence of human races and, along with that, endorsing "anti-racist fallacies" ("whites cannot suffer racism"; "blacks are always the victims"; "being in favor of preserving human races and ethnicities is racism"...)

The cowardice of the "left": talking about "white racism", "white supremacy" or "Nazism", today (2025), disregarding the real "Nazism" perpetrated against the Palestinian people. Because doing so is the same as "kicking a dead dog"...

It seems that the "left" is not "holding the Palestinian hand" enough...

The most literal aspect of emotional maturity is the ability to recognize one's own limits and mistakes, and to seek to improve or, at least, not worsen in what is lacking

When a massacre occurs against an innocent people (like the Palestinians) and the "world" remains silent (or is silenced by those who took it over), it is inevitable to reach the conclusion that nothing or very little has changed morally in human society since the first civilizations...

Political corruption is, first and foremost, political, and not economic or financial. Therefore, it is, first and foremost, ideological and moral. Its clearest example is the imposition of an ideological indoctrination (always based on lies) as a political method

It is common for there to be a big difference between thinking and being

About a big difference between the most rational and the most emotional:

The most rational can separate their personal life from the objective and impartial truths that they accumulate and absorb, while the most emotional tends to confuse them

As a result, a truth can become offensive and therefore falsifiable to the latter, while the former learns to control his most primitive impulse of wanting to adulterate his perception of reality so that it fits his emotional demands

Irrational people tend to literalize what is abstract. Religion itself is exactly about this literalization. Of treating as real what is not seen, not known, in fact...

Of despicable people

Spirits of pigs: superficial, selfish creatures, ignorant of everything that matters most in life, a more traditional type of pervert, of course it is the "right" that is most full

Of the most perverse...

...are those who use kindness to achieve shady goals

It is the feeling that the belief one adopts is false that also contributes to reinforcing the belief itself

If Christians were mostly kind, every country with a Christian majority would be the materialization of paradise on earth. But...

Perfection, in in its pure state, does not exist. Harmony is the only possible perfection

Certain defeatists typically believe that the systematic and political application of reason is an absolute impossibility, also because they are only projecting their own prevailing irrationalities, that is, justifying themselves in advance

But it may also be because they have adopted a mistaken, excessively idealistic concept of reason

In this case, the realism of knowing that the full application of reason is a probable practical impossibility is no better than the idealism of believing, even with all the evidence corroborating the most realistic and pessimistic scenario, because it helps to not abandon reason as a guide for life, even though it is also recommended to be realistic

Belief is what one believes in and which may or may not be a fact

It is not prejudice, when it is correlativism

It is not prejudice, often, it is stupidophobia

The correlation between toxic masculinity and limited intelligence is not a parallel correlate. Toxic masculinity, as a specific expression of narcissism, is also an expression of irrationality or stupidity in its most qualitative aspect

"Scientists cannot have an ideological bias"

But every serious scientist should have a philosophical bias (which leads/to a scientific bias)

The academy should select based on two criteria: technical or specific competence and philosophical or the ability to understand and adhere to the principles or values ​​of science, such as objectivity and impartiality

Idealism is more a question of distance than perfectionism

The weight of others may be an entirely personal issue, but it is also entirely a health issue

About that classic comparison between a random Nigerian individual and a Norwegian as an argument for the denial of the existence of human races: "a pure-race black Nigerian may be more genetically similar to a pure-race white Norwegian than to another Nigerian of the same racial status..."

A type of fallacy?? Of biased or biased comparison??

Like comparing, genetically, two individuals based on traits or aspects that are not relevant for a certain comparison, to convey a relativist idea of ​​insufficient difference??

The identitarian "left" is a combination of the morality of the Care Bears (in the belief that evil is fought with love) and Power Rangers (in which they take the lead in the fight against evil, in which they treat all their opponents as monsters and in which they have an obsessive belief in "representation"). 

Why does civilization cause intellectual dysgeny? 

And how can it be solved? It is not necessarily or only the relative comfort of a civilized society that reduces the selective pressure for intelligence, in its purest state, of the search for knowledge and its systematic application, but also because, in an environment that does not offer immediate dangers to life, this selection becomes more optional or is diverted to functions more secondarily related to intelligence, such as social adaptation. So, if the more complex a society becomes, the less directly necessary intelligence becomes in its purest state, as a solution to this problem, it would be necessary to create artificial means to promote the fertility of the most (genuinely) rational individuals. However, the problem of negative selection of rational intelligence in complex societies seems much deeper or more difficult to fully combat and resolve, given the enormous power of human irrationality throughout our history...

Human beings are the only animals that have evolved their intelligence to its purest state, of factual perception or the search for knowledge, considering it as an end in itself and not only or solely as a means to an end.

Rational intelligence is basically the application of emotional intelligence to intellectual matters

Naivety is a very undervalued type of stupidity

Anyone who sincerely or deeply believes in the current "identity activism" of the "left" suffers from a pathological naivety (a type of stupidity)

This seems to be the case for many white people

And then there are those who tacitly adopt this belief system for completely personal reasons, for social favoritism and also as an emotional crutch that ratifies their narcissistic tendencies

This seems to be the case for many black people

... Because, if the "leftist" doctrine preaches self-flagellation in the first group, it preaches the opposite for the second

The ease and historical and practical constancy with which a majority of "white" people are convinced or indoctrinated about fallacies and lies is literal proof that the so-called white supremacy has been limited to a minority of European Caucasians. From the belief in talking snakes to the dogma of absolute human equality...

"Self-knowledge is always wonderful"

Those who really don't know what self-knowledge means say: understanding one's own limits or knowing how limited one really is...

O que a cidade de Rotherham e a Palestina têm em comum?/What do the city of Rotherham and Palestine have in common?

 O que a cidade de Rotherham e a Palestina têm em comum? 

A priori, nada. São apenas duas localidades distantes uma da outra, uma no norte da Inglaterra e outra na região do Levante, no Oriente Médio. No entanto, coisas perturbadoras têm acontecido nessas regiões. Só que a "mídia tradicional", pelas mesmas razões, tem evitado a todo custo falar abertamente sobre cada caso, se convertendo mais uma vez naquilo que sempre foi, em um dos tentáculos do poder, acobertando crimes graves por causa de sua submissão à diretrizes "politicamente corretas". 

No primeiro caso, de 1997 a 2013, foram cometidos milhares de estupros seletivos, especialmente de adolescentes brancas de classe trabalhadora, por gangues de paquistaneses muçulmanos. E não é apenas a mídia que tem dado uma cobertura insignificante ao caso, mas também grupos que supostamente deveriam estar denunciando esses crimes, como as "feministas", que ficaram calados ou dando pouquíssima importância. Novamente, a desprezível indignação moral de muitos autodeclarados "de esquerda", em que parece que um crime só é digno de indignação se for cometido por seus inimigos políticos ou por indivíduos dos grupos que transformaram em bodes expiatórios, como os brancos. Então, para não serem vistos como "politicamente incorretos", se calaram por todo esse tempo e continuam... E ainda tem os que tentam abrandar a gravidade da situação... 

Pois, na Palestina, também tem acontecido atrocidades, cometidas contra civis pelo exército do estado de "Israel", pela desculpa de perseguir membros do grupo terrorista Hamas depois dos atentados de outubro. Algumas estimativas falam em mais de duzentos mil mortos com direito a todos os tipos de crimes de guerra possíveis. Mas... Porque a "mídia" ocidental está literalmente nas mesmas mãos sujas que estão exterminando inocentes naquela região...

Esses dois casos apenas reforçam as evidências de que a mídia nunca trabalhou para o bem comum, mas para o poder. 

What do the city of Rotherham and Palestine have in common?

At first glance, nothing. They are just two distant locations, one in the north of England and the other in the Levant region of the Middle East. However, disturbing things have been happening in these regions. But the "mainstream media", for the same reasons, has avoided talking openly about each case at all costs, once again becoming what it has always been, one of the tentacles of power, covering up serious crimes because of its submission to "politically correct" guidelines.

In the first case, from 1997 to 2013, thousands of targeted rapes were committed, especially of White working-class teenagers, by gangs of Pakistani Muslims. And it is not only the media that has given the case insignificant coverage, but also groups that are supposed to be denouncing these crimes, such as "feminists", who have remained silent or given very little importance. Once again, the despicable moral indignation of many self-proclaimed "leftists", who believe that a crime is only worthy of indignation if it is committed by their political enemies or by individuals from the groups they have turned into scapegoats, such as White people. So, in order not to be seen as "politically incorrect", they have remained silent for all this time and continue to do so... And there are still those who try to downplay the gravity of the situation...

Well, in Palestine, atrocities have also been committed against civilians by the army of the state of "Israel", under the pretext of persecuting members of the terrorist group Hamas after the October attacks. Some estimates speak of more than two hundred thousand deaths, including all types of possible war crimes. But... Because the Western "media" is literally in the same dirty hands that are exterminating innocent people in that region...

These two cases only reinforce the evidence that the media has never worked for the common good, but for power.

No cerne de todas as questões sociais, culturais, políticas, raciais.../At the heart of all social, cultural, political, racial issues...

 No cerne de todas as questões sociais, culturais, políticas, raciais...

ELES existem...

São eles que, disfarçados de direita, esquerda, extrema, moderada ou centro... De iluminados, obscuros, negros, brancos... Racistas, antirracistas, progressistas, conservadores... Muçulmanos, indianos, americanos... capitalistas, comunistas... Terroristas, pacifistas... São eles que, com os seus sorrisos falsos e suas atuações dignas de peças de teatro, jogam uns contra os outros, enquanto manipulam seus fantoches com dinheiro, poder, chantagem, corrupção... Que usam, mesmo muitos dos mais nobres como meios para os mesmos fins: "vingança", domínio absoluto... Os meios?? Confusão, destruição... E são muitos que os consideram os mais inteligentes de todos... Mas destruir civilizações é inteligente?? Se vingar de inocentes?? Genocídio ao invés de armistício?? Mentiras ao invés de verdades?? Isso é filosofia, sabedoria?? 

Uma tribo de supostos ESCOLHIDOS. Por Deus?? Por eles mesmos?? 

Mas que dedo mais podre. 

Quando é que irá finalmente evoluir, humanidade?? 

At the heart of all social, cultural, political, racial issues...

THEY exist...

They are the ones who, disguised as right, left, extreme, moderate or center... As enlightened, obscure, black, white... Racists, anti-racists, progressives, conservatives... Muslims, Indians, Americans... capitalists, communists... Terrorists, pacifists... They are the ones who, with their false smiles and their performances worthy of plays, play one against the other, while manipulating their puppets with money, power, blackmail, corruption... Who use even many of the noblest as means to the same ends: "revenge", absolute domination... The means?? Confusion, destruction... And there are many who consider them the most intelligent of all... But is destroying civilizations intelligent?? Taking revenge on innocents?? Genocide instead of armistice?? Lies instead of truths?? Is this philosophy, wisdom??

A tribe of supposed CHOSEN ONES. For God's sake?? For themselves??

What a rotten finger.

When will humanity finally evolve??

O nazismo disfarçado e inverso do anti branquismo/Disguised and inverse nazism of anti-whiteism

 Nazismo

Um grupo de brancos supremacistas que:

- Culpou os judeus por todos os males do mundo, por narrativas de demonização generalizada desta população;

- Quando chegou ao poder, na Alemanha dos anos 30, começou a discriminá-los abertamente, expulsando-os de cargos públicos, universidades e escolas; boicotando suas empresas; incentivando a hostilidade contra os mesmos; prendendo dissidentes e reativos às suas políticas hostis e por, fim, praticando limpeza étnica, expulsando-os de suas antigas localidades, para enviá-los a campos de concentração//extermínio.

Teoria da vingança via "cavalo de Tróia"

Então, temos o "anti racismo" que, na verdade, é um "anti branquismo", em que os algozes são os judeus supremacistas (sionistas) e as vítimas, os brancos europeus e seus descendentes da diáspora, vulgo "arianos". 

Vejamos:

O anti branquismo consiste na imposição de narrativas ou doutrinação (lavagem cerebral) e de políticas que têm como principal objetivo oprimir e até mesmo exterminar as pessoas brancas. Só que não acontece de maneira explícita e rápida, como aconteceu durante o regime nazista dos anos 30 do século passado, mas implícita e lentamente, sem que suas vítimas percebam do que se trata. Primeiro, tem a imposição de narrativas de demonização generalizada dos brancos e inculcação nos mesmos de auto ódio, como se todos fossem responsáveis pela escravidão africana ou pelo holocausto judeu (por exemplo). E essa imposição só tem sido possível com a infiltração de anti branquistas (sendo que, os mais importantes ou proeminentes têm sido muito desproporcionalmente de judeus) nas principais instituições do mundo ocidental: educação, mídia, governo... Segundo, também a partir de uma lavagem cerebral, baseada em manipulação emocional, brancos têm sido doutrinados a acreditar que raças humanas não existem, que suas diferenças são produtos de diferenças do meio e não de si mesmas, ou que suas diferenças não são mais intrínsecas, e que por, supostamente, serem culpados por todos os males da humanidade, precisam ser generosos com as "suas vítimas" do passado (e do presente), por exemplo, apoiando políticas de imigração em massa ou multiculturalismo. Eles também devem aceitar, de bom grado, políticas que os excluam ou os discriminem no mercado de trabalho e em outras áreas relevantes, como na educação superior. Pois essas medidas são análogas às que foram impostas pelos nazistas contra os judeus (e seus aliados gentios) durante o governo de Adolf Hitler. A mesma discriminação, a mesma narrativa de demonização e também a mesma limpeza étnica, só que por meio de um método indireto e legitimamente conspiratório: de políticas de imigração em massa nos países de maioria branca, incentivo ao auto ódio, à miscigenação racial e ao individualismo... Isto é, além da imposição de uma doutrinação de ideologias que incentivam a destruição dos valores tradicionais e o anti natalismo, como o feminismo e o individualismo, também incentivam à mistura de raças, especialmente dos brancos com outros grupos, enquanto demonizam o oposto, por exemplo, alargando em demasia o conceito de racismo e, a partir disso, classificando como tal qualquer defesa pela auto preservação racial, principalmente se for defendida por brancos. E como os brancos caucasianos apresentam fenótipos muito recessivos, os efeitos de uma miscigenação generalizada deste grupo representa o seu próprio desaparecimento ou de suas expressões fenotípicas mais autênticas, mas não apenas em aparência física, pois a mistura de raças também costuma ter os mesmos efeitos quanto aos traços mentais, se também são primariamente hereditários e mais recessivos (dos brancos bem como de outros grupos, como no caso de indivíduos de alto QI) , pelo que se percebe dos padrões de miscigenação...

Eu já comentei sobre esse tema nesse texto (Genocídio branco patrocinado pela "judiaria organizada": 'teoria' conspiratória ou realidade??),mas achei melhor voltar a falar sobre isso depois que cheguei a essa conclusão de que, o anti branquismo, primariamente orquestrados por judeus supremacistas ou sionistas, e amplamente adotado por seus "aliados" de outros grupos étnico-raciais, especialmente por muitos brancos ditos "de esquerda", se expressa exatamente como uma espécie de nazismo inverso (contra os "arianos", organizado e praticado principalmente por judeus*) e disfarçado: de justiça, correção histórica, empatia, amor, solidariedade, abnegação...

* Sempre deixo explícito que não pretendo generalizar grupos, como se todos os judeus estivessem plenamente conscientes dos planos de suas "elites" (ou máfias) em relação às outras populações humanas. 

Novamente, também tenho chegado à mesma conclusão que a do outro texto, de que se comporta ou se trata de um caso de "vingança" de um grupo sobre outro, diga-se, muito injusta, se também se baseia em uma generalização negativa de um grupo por outro(s). 

E no que isso tudo vai dar?? 

Em merda, é claro. 

Especialidade da espécie "mais inteligente"... 

Nazism

A group of white supremacists who:

- Blamed the Jews for all the evils of the world, through narratives of widespread demonization of this population;

- When they came to power in Germany in the 1930s, they began to openly discriminate against them, expelling them from public office, universities and schools; boycotting their companies; encouraging hostility against them; arresting dissidents and those who reacted to their hostile policies and, finally, practicing ethnic cleansing, expelling them from their former locations and sending them to concentration/extermination camps.

Theory of revenge via the "Trojan horse"

So, we have "anti-racism" which, in reality, is an "anti-whiteism", in which the executioners are the supremacist Jews (Zionists) and the victims, the white Europeans and their descendants from the diaspora, aka "Aryans".

Let's see:

Anti-whiteism consists of imposing narratives or indoctrination (brainwashing) and policies that have as their main objective the oppression and even extermination of white people. However, it does not happen explicitly and quickly, as it did during the Nazi regime in the 1930s, but implicitly and slowly, without its victims realizing what it is. First, there is the imposition of narratives of widespread demonization of white people and inculcation of self-hatred in them, as if every-White were responsible for African slavery or the Jewish Holocaust (for example). And this imposition has only been possible with the infiltration of anti-whiteists (the most important or prominent of whom have been disproportionately Jewish) into the main institutions of the Western world: education, media, government... Second, also through brainwashing, based on emotional manipulation, Whites have been indoctrinated to believe that human races do not exist, that their differences are products of differences in the environment and not of themselves, or that their differences are no more intrinsic, and that because they are supposedly to blame for all of humanity's ills, they need to be generous with "their victims" of the past (and present), for example, by supporting mass immigration policies or multiculturalism. They must also willingly accept policies that exclude or discriminate against them in the job market and in other relevant areas, such as higher education. For these measures are analogous to those imposed by the Nazis against the Jews (and their gentile allies) during the government of Adolf Hitler. The same discrimination, the same narrative of demonization and also the same ethnic cleansing, only through an indirect and legitimately conspiratorial method: mass immigration policies in countries with a white majority, encouraging self-hatred, racial miscegenation and individualism... That is, in addition to imposing an indoctrination of ideologies that encourage the destruction of traditional values ​​and anti-natalism, such as feminism and individualism, they also encourage the mixing of races, especially of Whites with other groups, while demonizing the opposite, for example, by overly broadening the concept of racism and, from that, classifying as such any defense of racial self-preservation, especially if it is defended by Whites. And since Caucasian Whites have very recessive phenotypes, the effects of widespread miscegenation of this group represent their own disappearance or their most authentic phenotypic expressions, but not only in physical appearance, since the mixing of races also tends to have the same effects on mental traits, if they are also primarily hereditary and more recessive (of Whites as well as of other groups, as in the case of individuals with high IQs), from what can be seen in the miscegenation patterns...

I have already commented on this topic in this text (White genocide sponsored by "organized Jewry": conspiracy 'theory' or reality??),but I thought it would be better to return to this after I came to the conclusion that anti-whiteism, primarily orchestrated by supremacist or Zionist Jews, and widely adopted by their "allies" from other ethnic-racial groups, especially by many so-called "left-wing" Whites, expresses itself exactly as a kind of reverse Nazism (against the "Aryans", organized and practiced mainly by Jews*) and disguised as: justice, historical correctness, empathy, love, solidarity, selflessness...

* I always make it clear that I do not intend to generalize groups, as if all Jews were fully aware of the plans of their "elites" (or mafias) in relation to other human populations.

Again, I have also reached the same conclusion as the other text, that it behaves or is a case of "revenge" of one group over another, let's say, very unfair, if it is also based on a negative generalization of one group by another(s).

And what will all this lead to??

In shit, of course.

Specialty of the "more intelligent" species

Mais e mais/More and more

 "Idiotas" habitualmente confundem o tamanho do próprio ego com inteligência

Existe uma forte atração dos que se acham os mais racionais, sem de fato serem, pela suposta filosofia que é ensinada nas universidades

Em condições ideais, o filósofo deveria ser o médico particular de um organismo social, por ser o mais realista, mais proficiente em compreender o que se passa com esse ou com um organismo. Mas tem sido uma classe especial de açougueiros que tem ocupado essa posição tão importante 

Não é sempre que uma maior vigilância ou controle do estado ou governo sobre indivíduos que é imoral, tal como parecem afirmar duas obras literárias internacionalmente famosas, 1984 e Admirável Mundo Novo, se existem contextos ou situações individuais em que intervenções externas podem ser mais benéficas do que prejudiciais e se também existem contextos coletivos em que deixar indivíduos livres para agirem de acordo com as suas próprias consciências pode ou tende a ser mais prejudicial do que benéfico 

O mais louco ainda não é aquele típico exemplo de indivíduo sofrendo um ataque psicótico (sim, em um sentido de intensidade da loucura), mas aquele indivíduo que aparenta ser "normal", porém, não tem a mais remota ideia do quão ideologicamente doutrinado ou desvirtuado da razão ele está e passa boa parte de sua vida nesse nível muito baixo de autoconsciência/autoconhecimento (em um sentido de profundidade e constância da loucura)

Existe o mentiroso patológico que mente mais para si mesmo do que para os outros e o mentiroso patológico que mente mais para os outros do que para si mesmo. O primeiro é um desesperado que encontrou na mentira uma fonte de sobrevivência. O segundo é um inescrupuloso que também encontrou na mentira uma fonte de sobrevivência 

Para entender o que é o médico é preciso entender o que é a medicina. Já para entender o que é a arte é preciso entender o que é o artista 

Com frequência, a desatenção é mais uma questão de perspectiva do que de deficiência, especialmente quando existe um claro direcionamento de atenção ou compensação  

A ideologia individualista em curso hegemônico, especialmente no mundo ocidental, nos dá uma dimensão distorcida do quão extremista é, ou também o quão distantes de um ideal de equilíbrio entre coletivismo e individualismo estamos, nós, ocidentais, das primeiras décadas do século XXI.

Dois exemplos: o acesso facilitado a veículos, desde que se tenha dinheiro para essa aquisição e também associado a uma prova para habilitação da carteira de motorista. Sim, o capitalismo turbinando esse acesso... Mas está claro que existem muitos motoristas irresponsáveis que não deveriam ter livre acesso a esse bem ou direito. Se o critério mais importante fosse a capacidade de direção responsável... Mas está completamente normalizado que qualquer um com dinheiro e carteira pode dirigir e a aplicação de multas não costuma surtir efeitos preventivos ou corretivos vigorosos. Parece comum que se espere que o pior aconteça para suspender a habilitação 

Outro exemplo é o direito facilitado e universalizado de geração de descendência, diga-se, um direito muito antigo e, até então, natural. Pois a partir de um crescente conhecimento (cientificamente legítimo) sobre a influência predominante da genética ou da biologia no comportamento e no desenvolvimento humanos, primariamente com base na percepção de padrões hereditários que corroboram para uma confirmação do "hereditarianismo" (de predomínio da influência de características intrínsecas no comportamento e desenvolvimento), a ideia teórica de que qualquer casal pode ter a quantidade de filhos que desejar parece definitivamente absurda, tacitamente negligente. Mas, como vivemos em um mundo dominado por essa ideologia individualista e que, inclusive, se associa ao igualitarismo, outra ideologia grosseiramente destoante de uma análise ponderada ou factual, parece absurdo, no sentido de cruel, acreditar que a natalidade de uma pessoa ou casal possa se tornar assunto de domínio público ou de outros e não apenas dos diretamente envolvidos

A ideia individualista de que um indivíduo tem que ter total autonomia sobre suas ações e decisões é extremista. Mas não significa então que ele não tenha ou não possa ter direito a qualquer nível de autonomia

Aquele que pensa que é o mais livre geralmente está habituado aos seus próprios vícios. Já aquele que é visto como mais conformista ou menos livre geralmente está viciado aos seus próprios hábitos

Uma "teoria conspiratória" no mínimo divertida, baseada numa das "teorias conspiratórias" mais antigas, sobre judeus, é a de que a "esquerda" ocidental tem sido usada justamente pelos judeus mais etnocêntricos ou racistas, sedentos por poder e guiados por ódio e desejo de "vingança" em relação aos gentios brancos de origem europeia, usando-a como um meio para destruí-los, em outras palavras, aqueles que dizem lutar contra fascistas estariam, na verdade, colaborando, ignorantes, com fascistas/sionistas judeus em seus planos de dominação mundial... Metaforicamente, autodeclarados progressistas ocidentais seriam como o cavalo de madeira e os judeus sionistas como os gregos escondidos dentro do "presente" para a cidade de Tróia ou Ocidente//Mundo

A eugenia, em teoria, pode ser moral ou imoral, apesar de que, na prática, não tem sido moral ou "boa". A disgenia, na teoria e na prática, é sempre imoral ou "ruim"

É comum saber o conceito de uma palavra ou termo abstrato, mas de não saber aplicá-lo corretamente em contextos, geralmente resultado de uma intrusão ideológica (ou emotiva) durante o processo de contextualização 

Também é comum a adoção de conceitos estabelecidos de palavras ou termos abstratos sem qualquer análise ou uma crítica mais profunda 

Os judeus são uma prova cabal de que é possível um povo ser muito inteligente, mas excepcionalmente irracional. Tal como pelo fato de "terem"* dominado a civilização ocidental, especialmente suas principais potências e de, apesar disso, estarem na vanguarda de sua própria destruição, ao promoverem políticas insanas, como a imigração sem controle, com base em ideologias que visam eliminar as populações originais do mundo ocidental, tal como matar a galinha dos ovos de ouro, os maiores colaboradores pelo seu próprio sucesso, se comportando exatamente como espécies parasitas no reino natural, irreflexivamente objetivos 

*Primariamente, suas "elites"

Além de tudo isso, estão literalmente destruindo uma civilização grandiosa, como tem sido a ocidental, apesar de suas muitas imperfeições, tal como o seu histórico de crueldades globalizadas. Até caberia pensar se essa estupidez hedionda não poderia ser categorizada como um grande exemplo da lei de ouro da estupidez humana, definida pelo economista italiano Carlo Cipolla

Para flagrante de estupro, o mais justo seria, a priori, a prisão perpétua (sem direito à qualquer regalias, com direito à esterilização e à castração química ou física), e pena de morte em caso de estupro seguido de homicídio. Mas, dependendo do nível de crueldade e do estado da vítima, mesmo sem homicídio, também poderia ter a pena de morte como veredito. Já no caso de reação violenta com intenção homicida ou com a consumação desse ato por parte da vítima ou por outra pessoa que intervir favoravelmente à vítima, o ideal seria a ausência de punição (também para qualquer caso confirmado de auto defesa ou defesa de vulnerável)

Autodeclarados democráticos: "devemos sempre defender a democracia" 

Mas mesmo quando resulta em idiocracia?? Tal como pela substituição do mérito em processos avaliativos e seletivos para educação superior e mercado de trabalho por critérios não-objetivos ou potencialmente injustos, por raça ou sexo, por exemplo??

Boa parte da ilusão de uma doutrinação ideológica consiste em evitar que os doutrinados percebam o que realmente está acontecendo e que é óbvio ou fácil de perceber 

Ser gay e mais racional ou integralmente inteligente é uma certeza de solidão, romanticamente falando... 

Ser gay e mais racional é como se sentir um eterno intruso ou espião em espaços individuais e coletivos do espectro LGBT 

Quanto ao contexto político, a racionalidade está associada a uma maior flexibilidade de posicionamento. Por exemplo, votar na direita ou extrema direita em uma eleição pode ser mais sensato do que fazê-lo em outra. Ainda que, com as tendências de longo prazo no mundo ocidental, de piora nas relações sociais causadas justamente por políticas endossadas e impostas por partidos e ideologias de esquerda, está cada vez mais difícil apoiá-la integralmente 

O mais triste sobre a tal esquerda é que pega pautas sérias e parece que, só para vandalizá-las ou deslegitimá-las depois 

De uma maneira bem bruta de dizer, políticas de esquerda tendem a expressar racionalizações de inadequação ou inadaptação individual e/ou de grupos. É a política do "perdedor" que busca ocupar o lugar do "vencedor". Por outro lado, sem qualquer política ou perspectiva crítica à da situação, o mundo seria tão ou mais injusto, como foi por séculos. O problema é os da oposição só criticarem o poder por estarem excluídos do seu acesso ilimitado e não pela injustiça ou irracionalidade da desigualdade de acesso, ainda mais para os mais sensatos, os mais naturalmente aptos a exercerem funções de gerência social. Então, quando os outrora perdedores conseguem tomar o poder, tem sido só para ocuparem o espaço dos outrora vencedores, isto é, de um espaço de comando e também de opressão em potencial 

Na atualidade, a real política ou, o que de fato acontece no mundo, está predominantemente do lado da extrema direita, enquanto que tem restado, especialmente à centro-esquerda, as "fofocas" de dentro do sistema. É assim que tem acontecido no jogo político, quando um grupo ou certas ideias e verdades são excluídos dos discursos oficiais e outros amplamente adotados e endossados. O primeiro passa a  expressar (de maneira não-absoluta) a política real e o outro a se limitar às pequenas verdades ou inverdades dos "da situação", ainda mais que, historicamente, aqueles no poder têm abusado de mentiras para se perpetuarem no topo. 

Uma espécie de compensação para os que são excluídos 

"Foi encontrado uma correlação de 0,3 entre QI e filiação político-ideológica de esquerda..."

Exemplo fictício ainda que, possivelmente verdadeiro, só para ilustrar...

Ok, mas por que também não usar estatísticas em um formato típico, por exemplo, "foi encontrado que '30%' das pessoas que pontuaram acima da média em testes de QI (100 ou mais) em determinado estudo se declararam como progressistas ou de esquerda, se comparado com '15%' das que pontuaram abaixo da média"

Mesmo se não é todo professor que é arrogante e todo cientista que é humilde, o cientista sério, muito focado no seu trabalho, tem menos tempo para ser arrogante do que o professor. Além disso, o professor precisa estar sempre lidando com o meio social, ao contrário do cientista

O cristão acredita na volta de Jesus, assim como o esquerdista acredita que apenas a educação que irá milagrosamente desenvolver um país

O mais emocionalmente inteligente se assemelha mais ao menos emocionalmente inteligente do que àquele de inteligência emocional mediana, porque ambos tendem a priorizar a verdade ou, pelo menos, a sinceridade sobre o engano ou "mentiras brancas". Um, por ser demasiado sensível à verdade dentro de um contexto emotivo. O outro por ser demasiado insensível à mentira, especialmente à "bem intencionada'

O etnocentrismo irracional ou típico é um fenômeno psicossocial em que seus comportamentos mais comuns são: a defesa de indivíduos que cometem crimes hediondos apenas por pertencerem ao mesmo grupo étnico ou racial; a manipulação de  fatos considerados inconvenientes ao grupo étnico ou racial de pertencimento, ao invés de aceita-los; a responsabilização de outros grupos por pendengas coletivas do grupo de associação, diga-se, que também pode se manifestar por outros tipos ou categorias de coletivismo, por orientação sexual, sexo, ideologia... 

Um etnocentrismo racional se difere do irracional por não haver encobrimento ou racionalização de crimes cometidos por indivíduos da mesma raça ou etnia, manipulação de fatos considerados inconvenientes sobre o grupo de associação, enfim, por não haver ausência de autocrítica 

Nesse sentido, porque o coletivismo é uma tendência praticamente inevitável, de sempre acabarmos nos associando a grupos com os quais mais nos identificamos, o coletivismo racional é sempre aquele em que a autocrítica ao próprio grupo não se sobrepõe nem é insuficiente ao sentimento positivo de pertencimento, em outras palavras, sem acabar resultando em fanatismo ou preconceito, se pelo próprio grupo ou em relação aos outros.

Também, nesse sentido, indivíduos que estão associados a um grupo por biologia ou autodeclaração, mas são demasiadamente críticos ao mesmo, isto é, exageradamente, na verdade, seriam tipos tão irracionais quanto, só que devotos ao "auto ódio" (que também pode indicar incompatibilidades internas de grupo) 

O filósofo semanticalista (que enfatiza a palavra sobre o seu significado) e honesto é o mágico que cai no próprio truque 

Ofensa não é sempre sobre sinceridade (verdade subjetiva) ou sobre dizer a verdade (objetiva), pois também pode ser uma mentira (exagero ou invenção) 

Estado mínimo e mercado máximo também seria o mesmo que transformar uma sociedade em um conglomerado de empresas

Uma escolha individual é um assunto de domínio privado. Muitas escolhas individuais parecidas é um fenômeno social e, portanto, um assunto de domínio público 

O mais sábio tem o idealismo dos mais ingênuos e a sagacidade dos mais espertos

A diferença entre o mais racional e o mais fanático é que o primeiro defende a razão com convicção apaixonada enquanto que o segundo defende o seu fanatismo ideológico com a mesma paixão e que, erroneamente, tende a considerar como a verdadeira razão

Uma tentativa de conversa entre pessoas com perspectivas existenciais completamente distintas é tal como uma tentativa de comunicação entre espécies de planetas diferentes

"Idiots" habitually confuse the size of their ego with intelligence

There is a strong attraction for those who think they are the most rational, without actually being so, by the supposed philosophy that is taught in universities

Ideally, the philosopher should be the private doctor of a social organism, as he is the most realistic, most proficient in understanding what is happening with that or an organism. But it has been a special class of butchers who have occupied this important position

It is not always that greater surveillance or control by the state or government over individuals is immoral, as two internationally famous literary works, 1984 and Brave New World, seem to assert, if there are contexts or individual situations in which external interventions can be more beneficial than that harmful and whether there are also collective contexts in which leaving individuals free to act according to their own consciences can or tends to be more harmful than beneficial

The craziest thing is not that typical example of an individual suffering a psychotic attack (yes, in a sense of intensity of madness), but that individual who appears to be "normal", however, does not have the remotest idea of ​​how ideologically indoctrinated or distorted from reason, he is and spends a good part of his life at this very low level of self-awareness/self-knowledge (in a sense of depth and constancy of madness)

There is the pathological liar who lies more to himself than to others and the pathological liar who lies more to others than to himself. The first is a desperate person who found a source of survival in lies. The second is an unscrupulous person who also found a source of survival in lies.

To understand what a doctor is, you need to understand what medicine is. To understand what art is, you need to understand what the artist is.

Often, inattention is more a matter of perspective than deficiency, especially when there is a clear direction of attention or compensation.

The hegemonic individualist ideology, especially in the Western world, gives us a distorted dimension of how extremist it is, or also how far from an ideal balance between collectivism and individualism we, Westerners, are in the first decades of the 21st century.

Two examples: easier access to vehicles, as long as you have the money for this purchase and also associated with a test to obtain a driver's license. Yes, capitalism boosts this access... But it is clear that there are many irresponsible drivers who should not have free access to this good or right. If the most important criterion were the ability to drive responsibly... But it is completely normalized that anyone with money and a license can drive and the imposition of fines does not usually have strong preventive or corrective effects. It seems common to wait for the worst to happen to suspend the license.

Another example is the facilitated and universalized right to generate descendants, a very ancient and, until then, natural right. Because from a growing (scientifically legitimate) knowledge about the predominant influence of genetics or biology on human behavior and development, primarily based on the perception of hereditary patterns that corroborate the confirmation of "hereditarianism" (predominant influence of intrinsic characteristics in behavior and development), the theoretical idea that any couple can have as many children as they want seems definitely absurd, tacitly negligent. But, as we live in a world dominated by this individualistic ideology and which is even associated with egalitarianism, another ideology that is grossly deviated from a considered and factual analysis, it seems absurd, in the sense of cruel, to believe that the birth rate of a person or couple may become a matter of public domain or of others and not just those directly involved

The individualistic idea that an individual must have complete autonomy over their actions and decisions is extremist. But this does not mean that he does not or cannot have the right to any level of autonomy

Those who thinks are the freest are generally accustomed to their own vices. Those who are seen as more conformist or less free are generally addicted to their own habits.

An amusing "conspiracy theory", to say the least, based on one of the oldest "conspiracy theories" about Jews, is that the Western "left" has been used precisely by the most ethnocentric or racist Jews, thirsty for power and guided by hatred and desire for "revenge" towards White gentiles of European origin, using it as a means to destroy them, in other words, those who claim to fight against fascists would, in fact, be ignorantly collaborating with Jewish Fascists/Zionists intheir plans for world domination... Metaphorically, self-declared Western progressives would be like the wooden horse and the Zionist Jews like the Greeks hidden within the "gift" to the city of Troy or the West//World

Eugenics, in theory, can be moral or immoral, although in practice it has not been moral or "good". Dysgenics, in theory and practice, is always immoral or "bad"

It is common to know the concept of a word or abstract term, but not know how to apply it correctly in contexts, generally the result of an ideological (or emotional) intrusion during the contextualization process.

It is also common to adopt established concepts of abstract words or terms without any deeper analysis or criticism.

The Jews are clear proof that it is possible for a people to be very intelligent but exceptionally irrational. Such as the fact that they "have"* dominated Western civilization, especially its main powers, and despite this, they are at the forefront of their own destruction, by promoting insane policies, such as uncontrolled immigration, based on ideologies that aim to eliminate the original populations of the Western world, like killing the goose that laid the golden eggs, the greatest contributors to their own success, behaving exactly like parasitic species in the natural realm, unreflexively objective

*Primarily, its "elites"

In addition to all this, they are literally destroying a great civilization, such as the Western one, despite its many imperfections, such as its history of globalized cruelties. One might even wonder if this hideous stupidity could not be categorized as a great example of the golden law of human stupidity, defined by the Italian economist Carlo Cipolla

For flagrant rape, the fairest option would be, a priori, life imprisonment (without the right to any benefits, following by sterilization and chemical or physical castration), and the death penalty in cases of rape followed by murder. But, depending on the level of cruelty and the condition of the victim, even without homicide, the death penalty could also be the verdict. In the case of a violent reaction with homicidal intent or with the completion of this act by the victim or by another person who intervenes in favor of the victim, the ideal would be the absence of punishment (also for any confirmed case of self-defense or defense of a vulnerable person)

Self-declared democratic: "we must always defend democracy"

But even when it results in idiocracy?? Such as replacing merit in evaluation and selection processes for higher education and the job market with non-objective or potentially unfair criteria, by race or sex, for example?

Much of the illusion of ideological indoctrination consists of preventing those being indoctrinated from realizing what is really happening and what is obvious or easy to understand.

Being gay and more rational or integrally intelligent is a certainty of loneliness, romantically speaking...

Being gay and more rational is like feeling an eternal intruder or spy in individual and collective spaces on the LGBT spectrum

As for the political context, rationality is associated with greater flexibility. For example, voting right or far right in one election may be more sensible than doing so in another. Even though, with the long-term trends in the Western world of worsening social relations caused precisely by policies endorsed and imposed by left-wing parties and ideologies, it is increasingly difficult to fully support it

The saddest thing about the so-called left is that it takes serious issues and it seems that, only to vandalize or delegitimize them later

In a very crude way of putting it, left-wing policies tend to express rationalizations of individual and/or group inadequacy or inadaptation. It is the politics of the "loser" that seeks to take the place of the "winner". On the other hand, without any policy or critical perspective on the situation, the world would be as or more unfair, as it has been for centuries. The problem is that those in the opposition only criticize power because they are excluded from its unlimited access and not because of the injustice or irrationality of unequal access, especially for the most sensible, those most naturally able to exercise social management functions. So, when the former losers manage to take power, it has only been to occupy the space of the former winners, that is, a space of command and also of potential oppression.

Currently, real politics, or what actually happens in the world, is predominantly on the side of the extreme right, while what remains, especially on the center-left, is "gossip" from within the system. This is how it has happened in the political game, when a group or certain ideas and truths are excluded from official narratives and others that are widely adopted and endorsed. The first starts to express (in a non-absolute way) the real policy and the other to limit itself to the

small truths or untruths from those "in the situation", especially since, historically, those in power have overusing lies to perpetuate themselves at the top.

A kind of compensation for those who are excluded

"A correlation of 0.3 was found between IQ and left-wing political-ideological affiliation..."

Fictional example although possibly true, just to illustrate...

Okay, but why not also use statistics in a typical format, for example, "'30%' of people who scored above average on IQ tests (100 or higher) in a given study were found to declare themselves as progressive or left, compared to '15%' of those who scored below average"

Even if not every teacher is arrogant and every scientist is humble, the serious scientist, very focused on his work, has less time to be arrogant than the teacher. Furthermore, the teacher needs to always be dealing with the social environment, unlike the scientist

The Christian believes in the return of Jesus, just as the Leftist believes that only education will miraculously develop a country

The most emotionally intelligent person is more similar to the less emotionally intelligent person than the person with average emotional intelligence, because both tend to prioritize the truth or, at least, sincerity over deception or "white lies." One, for being too sensitive to the truth within an emotional context. The other for being too insensitive to lies, especially "well-intentioned" ones

Irrational or typical ethnocentrism is a psychosocial phenomenon in which its most common behaviors are: the defense of individuals who commit heinous crimes just because they belong to the same ethnic or racial group; the manipulation of facts considered inconvenient to the ethnic or racial group of belonging, instead of accepting them; the holding for other groups responsibility for collective issues of the association group, so to speak, which can also be manifested by other types or categories of collectivism, by sexual orientation, gender, ideology...

Rational ethnocentrism differs from irrational ethnocentrism in that there is no cover-up or rationalization of crimes committed by individuals of the same race or ethnicity, manipulation of facts considered inconvenient about the association group, in short, there is no absence of self-criticism

In this sense, because collectivism is a practically inevitable tendency, in which we always end up associating ourselves with groups with which we identify most, rational collectivism is always one in which self-criticism of one's own group does not override nor is insufficient to the positive feeling of belonging. , in other words, without ending up resulting in fanaticism or prejudice, whether by the group itself or in relation to others.

Also, in this sense, individuals who are associated with a group by biology or self-declaration, but are too critical of it, that is, exaggeratedly, in fact, would be just as irrational types, but devoted to "self-hatred" (which can also indicate internal group incompatibilities)

The semanticalist philosopher (who emphasizes the word over its meaning) and honest is the magician who falls for his own trick

Offense is not always about sincerity (subjective truth) or about telling the truth (objective), as it can also be a lie (exaggeration or invention)

Minimum state and maximum market would also be the same as transforming a society into a conglomerate of companies

An individual choice is a private domain. Many similar individual choices is a social phenomenon and, therefore, a matter of public domain

The wisest has the idealism of the most naive and the sagacity of the cunning

The difference between the most rational and the most fanatical is that the first defends reason with passionate conviction while the second defends his ideological fanaticism with the same passion and which, mistakenly, he tends to consider as the true reason.

An attempt at conversation between people with completely different existential perspectives is just like an attempt at communication between species from different planets.