Without nature and all of the various organisms within, what would we have to compare ourselves to?

Angels and 'godd.' According to christ cult, we are between angels and beasts. Higher than one, lower than the other. Between. There's a word for this view, and that word is: wrong.

It's natural to make such. Pierce did this, and Strom did it. Stephen Whittle in England is in jail for doing it.

It is natural, and truly there are many astonishing animals and insects out there, which are pretty much unknown to most people. Studying those relationships tends naturally to call up relations between so-called human species. I mean, there is an astonishing range of intra- and inter-species relationships, astonishingly complex, often involving multiple species. Animals use fake looks, fake scents, fake calls to confuse and confound predators and competitors. Even fucking plants, just sitting there lollygagging, with the exception of some modest sun stretching, have all kinds of developed defense mechanisms, mostly chemical, but some physical. The world is more astonishing and amazing than it appears at first glance, and it's pretty amazing at first glance. This is why I mock the rockheads who want to dump terra firma for the vast ether-regions of inert gases and exciting dead rocks. We don't even know all the animals that exist on earth, and these nuckfuts want to travel to Mars. It takes a lack of imagination as vast and dessicate as the Great Christian Interochlear Desert to find space as interesting as earth's fauna and flora. Anyway, in biology they point to three types of relationships between creatures - parasitic, symbiotic, and commensalist - and as one studies these things, one can't help but see parallels to jew-human and nigger-human interactions.

They are fantasists who refuse to bow to reality. The things they want can't happen, only misery created by trying to force it. They do that, then they call the anti-miserists evil hateful extremists. All cults follow this model. They conceive an impossible utopia, suppress anyone who takes a pin of logical questioning to their crazy balloon head-world. Just because people can think doesn't mean they can think clearly. Even if they can think clearly, and perceive clearly, it doesn't mean their accurate thoughts and perceptions won't be trumped by the imaginary world created by their fantasies and enforced by their will. In fact, very often people capable of having such fantasies, and of overcoming external evidence and internal opposition to these fantasies, find it very easy to enforce their insanity on others, because they've become very angry, bellicose, and self-righteous through the steeling that whole psychological process involves, and they simply browbeat the normals into going along. Their character defects have been galvanized into a sword of insanity fully capable of slicing realitarians in half. People who actually respect reality tend to be a lot calmer and more easygoing than cultists, which is why cultists, in some form, usually end up running politics.

Attributing hate, or any other human emotion or feeling, to animals is called anthropomorphism. Animals don't hate. They compete. Hyena and lion battling for food are doing just that, nothing more. Just as two bucks competing for a doe do not hate each other, they merely do what their drives compel them to do. Humans have those same drives, but also self-awareness. They not only do what they do, they see themselves doing it, and try to justify or explain it to themselves.

Hyenas and lions are entirely different species. They overlap in their need for meat. But even with lions, I would bet, without having studied, there is some mutual help. For example, maybe the hyenas somehow alert lions to the presence of prey, and in return they sometimes get to steal some chunks and eat the bones of the lions' kill. That's probably not actually the case, but that's how species often interact. Mixture of competition and help, even if inadvertent.

The bad drives out the good is Gresham's Law. It referred only to money. But in practice, it extends to most things. The bad drive out the good, or the lower drive out the higher, because the bad is simpler, less complex. Like Mexicans or niggers vs whites. The mex or nigs need nothing to breed, because they don't plan ahead. Whites think about money, space, time, so they tend to have fewer and higher-quality children. But if a more fruitful race is in the same area, it will tend to displace them, simply because the crude and common is easier to reproduce. It takes a lot of care to produce pedigreed dogs or horses, but it's easy to produce mutts and nags. Not just things, but civilization. It takes a hell of a lot of base painting knowledge, of technique, color, form, to produce a generation from which a da Vinci can spring. That kind of knowledge can disappear much more quickly than it took to develop, and it won't come back again easily. Take a house cards. All human civilizational development is like this. It takes a long time to develop, but it can be destroyed, if not in a second, in a very brief span of time - a single generation. The higher is just plain harder to achieve and sustain than the lowly and inferior. Standards must be acknowledged and upheld, otherwise they don't exist. It's easier to listen to rap and eat bananas than make a paella and write a symphony.

Eh, they put it like that, but it's kind of an exaggeration. Bluegill come in large and small. The small ones exist because the tiny males swoop in sideways and spray sperm on the female's eggs, the female of the larger bull bluegill. Kind of a pathetic strategy, but it works. There's all kinds of stuff like that in nature. Every possible form of deception is out there. Nature is very much like Mossad - by way of deception is its general rule.

Well, the earth has been around for billions of years. That's time for a lot of environmental changes, which tends to help species come and go, as they fit the shifting atmosphere. I use the figure to make a rhetorical point. Actually, it would work well with a christ-cultic WN, because it could be used as an example of the rules of God's creation, and teamed with the various genocides mentioned in the Old Testament, to show that

1) god loves genetic extinction
2) god loves human genetic extinction

This would justify

3) making extinct the people who turned their back on jesus (ie murdered him)

This is 100% as Christianically sound as any other christian policy on race, which is the problem with the religion. It turns in any direction. It's a political vane.

Again, using human emotions or attitudes toward nature is as off-base as using them toward animals.

Nature, the physical world, exists. Certain laws obtain. We don't need to take any attitude toward this - respect, reverence, worship - we simply need, if our desire is to stay alive and functional, to take these laws, as best we understand them and can figure them out, into account. I think even saying "respect" in a sense beyond merely observe, is to go to far. Why should I respect conditions that inhibit my movement. I, sir, would like to fly. With my own arms. Nature says not gonna happen. So I don't see any need to respect conditions imposed by nature I would not impose on myself. I see only my own need to observe nature's laws in order to safeguard my corporeal health.

Three forms of foolish worship, in my book. False idols, these:

nature
god
regulation

None of these will save you, folks.

[Back to writings]

[Back to home]