The first insight is into what makes for a Schwazzenegaresque work of art. Is it simply being one step removed from Hitleresque as I suspect it to be? Well, Arnie played a robot who goes around collectively punishing all of his enemies (which just happen to be all humanity) and following its programming like a Necron. How much more fascistic can you get than a necron? How much more neurotic and anal retentive can you get than being a machine that follows its programming? The evidence seems conclusive does it not?
Ahh, but maybe the fact Schwazzenegar became a member of the Hitlerite Republican Party has nothing to do with his audience's perception of his work! And what about Conan the Barbarian? Doesn't that sound sufficiently psychopathic? And psychopaths are the opposites of right-wing authoritarians, just as the Joker is Batman's opposite. BUT, observe this cutting analysis which shows how far Conan is from being a loose cannon, he is a momma's boy forever tied to her apron strings. He only acts like a psychopath becasue he comes from a psychopathic (ie, barbarian) society.
The second insight is the fact that 'noble' is an intrinsic thus anarchistic quality. Now, this may seem bizarre, but where's the fun mathematically proving it to be true? People don't listen and people don't give a shit about anything important or new or novel, at least as far as a creative genius defines novel, so let's skip all that tedious math and get to the fun part: following the implications of an "insane" axiom to their logical conclusion until someone's puny brittle mind shatters.
The first implication has to do with Putin being noble. We know that Putin is noble because he is Tarzan and Tarzan is a noble savage whose nobility is undisputed and unchallengeable fact. Putin and Tarzan are not right-wing authoritarians or fascists, they are manly Moralists who care for the little people and enforce standards. We know Putin is a moralist because he is honest and straightforward, unlike all the dishonest lickspittle Euro politicians, he told journalists that Africans shouldn't be celebrated because they are cannibals. And he said it because it's true.
Secondly, what makes them noble is the fact they themselves have to break the standards they were raised by and that surround them in order to act BETTER than everyone else. Tarzan is noble because he behaves better than an animal (ie, a noble savage is not a savage) and Putin is better because he doesn't behave like a Russian or a KGB man or a mafia boss. Russia's standards might be low but few Russians have the testicles to rise above them. Putin is the man with the balls to be better than his contemporaries and to lead them into a bright shining future. Even if he has to break a few skulls to do it. Napoleon did it, Alexander did it, and now Putin is doing it.
Thirdly, if nobility is an intrinsic thus anarchistic qualitty then why is it that right-wing authoritarians value it so much? Well, it's because right-wing authoritarians are all coprophiliacs eating the food their mummy preprocessed for them from her ass. They are traditionalists who assimilate all of the values and traditions of the precvious generations. And in order to climb the ladder, their ancestors had to break more than a few rules because reality simply doesn't work the way Necrons' ossified brains want to believe. So they, being born to privilege are intrinsically better than their non-coprophilic ancestors. That is why RWAs believe they have the intrinsic quality of nobility which their ancestors (who were ennobled and entitled) lacked. In fact, it's precisely the reason why you have to be born to the upper class and can't simply climb up to it to be really noble as far as the upper classes and RWAs are concerned.
The third insight has to do with what each gender wants. Now, a lot of people regurgitate the idiocy that women desire power. But if this were strictly and logically true then women would do the things that are necessary to acquire power. Things like going out on explorer starships called Enterprise um Spanish Galleons called the Santa Maria in order to explore strange new continents and seek new slaves. But women have never done any of those things, EVER, in all of human history, and they have stayed the fuck away from political power too. Why? Because women are highly risk averse.
Now, when people really want something then they're willing to take risks to get it. 1% chance of winning 100 million dollars? Are you kidding? I'm in! When the reward is HIGH enough then even a low chance of success seems amazing. But apparently, the reward of Power is NEVER high enough to get women to move their asses. Blatantly evident to anyone with a mind, women don't want power and have never wanted it. Yet equally, there is SOMETHING about power which they DO want, otherwise it wouldn't turn them on so damned much.
What do women want? They want to be indulged like the emotionally underdeveloped mental children that they are. That's why taking risks FOR power is inconsistent with their USE of power. Because being indulged means never taking the risks yourself. Other people indulge you, OTHER people have the POWER TO indulge you. And you yourself do nothing. So if women who lust for power don't actually want power at all, and certainly are willing to do virtually nothing for it, then is it the case that men want power?
NO. Men do NOT want power. Men want ... to be wanted. That's why they value beauty, because beauty guarantees that you're desired. That, or handsomeness, or power. Yeah, power guarantees that women want you. Aaand that explains why anarcho-communists like Clinton and anarchists like Thatcher (who could never be accused of being a woman) got into politics. Why? Because they were wanted there. Everyone wanted them.
Men are good for something in the world after all whereas ever since the uterus has been devaluad, women are pretty much worthless. And they know it and they are pissed. That's why they've been complaining ever since the fertility rate fell down from 12 children per woman.
Finally, and this insight isn't original, but the simple fact that radiation is the safest thing in the universe. We know that extra radiation isn't harmful to life and that radiation is necessary for living things to function. So obviously there's the dose of radiation necessary to thrive and there's the dose that will kill you. And for water, it's 2-8 liters a day to thrive and 20 liters will kill you. For air, a mere 15 bar will make nitrogen toxic and removing the nitrogen is cheating of course. For radiation? ONE MILLION TIMES the necessary dose starts getting lethal.
Fear of radiation is like fear of cannabis. Oh no, it'll kill you! It'll give you cancer! It'll make Mexicans rape our women! People hate radiation because it's GOOD, because it's BETTER than they are. Because people are SCUM. Because people LIKE evil. If people met an angel, they'd murder it. That's why they murder nuclear power plants, because they are angels. Angels that provide poor humans, and not just elite scum, with heat and power so they don't starve and freeze to death. Yeah, let's murder them all! Because we want evil, because we want starvation and death. People make me sick.
Trump’s budget hits transit hard
1 month ago