/edu/ - Education

>I think it's pathetic
Okay, but what is science? I haven't heard an answer from this guy, just a critique. I just finished a long book, The Invention of Science, that pretty persuasively argues that some of things that distinguished the new discipline of science in the Renaissance from previous methods was the emphasis on experimentation, reproducibility, and testing/verification. You have to have a community where people publish their work and read the work of others in order to accomplish these things. Simply coming up with an idea is not science. People invented or discovered many things in history before the idea of science was realized, it doesn't mean they were secretly doing science. Science isn't simply the acquisition of new knowledge, it's a particular method of doing it. There are some strong critiques of the modern peer review institutions that can be made, but if you throw out the very idea of a community you don't really have science anymore.

>>7532
This is reasonable, but you can still have group-bias within a community. Science needs to be open to the hole of society.

>>7532
>experimentation, reproducibility, and testing/verification
Oh yeah I missed one. Perhaps the most important thing to accomplishing the rest of these was publishing your methodology. This is what for example distinguished the new science of chemistry from the old woo of alchemy. Alchemy books often attempted to hide their made-up bullshit behind a veil of extremely arcane esoterica and this paradoxically enhanced their credulity in the read by through the allure of secret, forbidden knowledge. There was a very conscious and deliberate demand by new institutions dedicated to the advancement of chemistry that whenever someone wanted to publish in their journals they had to describe their methodology to a sufficient degree that others could reproduce their results.

If someone is unwilling to publish or barred from publishing their findings (this is where the critique of institutionalized publishing arises), others have no means of reproducing them and you cannot establish a scientific process.

>>7534
>Alchemy books often attempted to hide their made-up bullshit behind a veil of extremely arcane esoterica and this paradoxically enhanced their credulity in the read by through the allure of secret, forbidden knowledge. There was a very conscious and deliberate demand by new institutions dedicated to the advancement of chemistry that whenever someone wanted to publish in their journals they had to describe their methodology to a sufficient degree that others could reproduce their results.
They went from trust me bro to show me bro

>>7532
Science began as the practice of labor to understand the world, because their work required them to acknowledge a world outside of themselves as real and worth something in a material sense - that is, science doesn't happen "randomly" or by institutional decrees. Someone has to want to study the world as what it is or what it does, rather than a theory or formalism about the world. Science is not identical to inquiry about the world generally, or any genius of humans to create ideas which doesn't necessarily pertain to anything about the outside world. People can learn and know things that are only relevant to some hobby, which ultimately is pursued out of some whim that humans have for doing such a thing. None of that is "science", even though it may utilize known science, or treat "science" as a hobby rather than a serious inquiry. The laborer whose work has to be worth something to establish a position in political society at all, even as a slave, and this required fidelity to reality and some method to ensure that it is real, rather than say what looks legalistically real or feels real or is temporarily expedient. Nothing else would really care about "truth" in that way. Political truth, when it is not view dispassionately as something alien to us, is really about power and impressions of such rather than anything that would be treated as a material science.

The university, from its inception in medieval times, is about ensuring that science is held by the rulers and stripped from the people in every way possible, for a reduced form of it to be given pedagogically - always in the most despotic implementation possible, and denying the agency of anyone outside of the institution to conduct science. In other words, independent verification - the only reason why science would be seen as a spiritual authority - had to be impossible for institutional science to be imposed on reality. The science of the rulers is still science - they conduct labor just as anyone else does - but their science is intended to construct an alternate reality, rather than navigate the world we live in or speak honestly about a single aspect of it. Lying is natural to institutions, where for associations, lying only persists to a point, for everyone has to reckon with a world outside of society and its conceits eventually.

In principle, the middle class - the commons - starts out as little more than a higher grade of workers whose technology and means allow them to live independently of associations, and contest property and the higher offices. And so, superficially, a nascent aristocracy drawn from the commons - from technology generally - appears superficially to be the vanguard of science. None of that science was possible without something to work towards, and a way in which science was now valued by money for the products it created, rather than labor being a tool with particular uses for property. In other words, a general theory of technology is particular to the commons rather than "science". The science of the laborer tended to concern what laborers did, and general theories about the universe were a basis for understanding their speciality, rather than an effort to create a "grand theory of everything" in that way.

Obviously, workers only live so long, form associations only, and have reasons to distrust each other that are far more pragmatic or bigoted towards the universal inferior - the lowest class, who are relegated to begging. But, workers will require a general working theory of the world - of what things are in nature, and how to classify the world in a way that is sensical and accessible. But, the idea of science as a spiritual authority is not the idea of labor for its own sake. That was particular to a faction of the commoners, and perhaps those who saw an alliance of technology and industry - sometimes rendered as "science and industry" - as preferable, which included members of the higher orders of property and aristocracy who saw no reason not to allow this if it suited them. The lowest class as a rule is left out of everything - that is the most sacred taboo, as if the lowest class were ever admitted without being relegated immediately to the most abject position of labor possible, it would mean the end of human history and the end of political society in any recognizable or workable form. The lowest class has a rule has no interest in joining an alien and predatory society that will always attack them, that has nothing to offer them, and only breaks down at the uttermost end of need - when they've been tortured so much that they no longer possess the will for proper suicide, only terror-suicide on the terms of the ruling ideas.

>>7604
>Science began as the practice of labor to understand the world, because their work required them to acknowledge a world outside of themselves as real and worth something in a material sense
That's a pretty good take

>People can learn and know things that are only relevant to some hobby, which ultimately is pursued out of some whim that humans have for doing such a thing. None of that is "science"
I don't know about that definition, if we ever managed to build fully automated space communism along the lines of star trek, basically every human activity would become a hobby. And by your definition "science" would become impossible. Like if we build a just world, with lots of ethical technology, where everybody is treated well, we can't do "science" anymore, just pursue "whimsical curiosity" ?

>The laborer whose work has to be worth something to establish a position in political society at all
>that would be treated as a material science.
Same objection as above, this locks your definition of science to class society.

You're not wrong with the direction your are going, but you have to allow for the possibility for improving social relations.

>>7608
My point isn't that hobbyists "can't do science because they're not serious", but that science requires a serious inquiry and purpose into the world. Hobby labor is still a type of labor, but "dreaming about video games" is not the same as considering science as a theory of the world. A lot of the world isn't directly in the purview of science, unless we really make a point of caring about the hobbies of people conducted in their private time.

By no means does science mean that your science is "good science" or accurate. But, the hobbyist is very clear that this is just for fun, rather than an intrinsically interested theory of science. Science to be science implies that there is at least an attempt to be honest about the world, at least for yourself. Someone can produce intentionally dishonest science or psuedoscience, but if they do, they work on the presumption that this has to convince or persuade people that it is as true as honest science, or it has to convince the audience that "science is fake" or "science is impossible". The "science is fake" argument is what many ideologues do - willful and flagrant violations of basic sense repeated ad nauseum. But, a clever pseudoscientist or bullshitter is very good at emulating the methods of science, while taking care to construct it dishonestly because that suits whatever purpose dishonesty serves.

Of course, many people can do science poorly and roughly, and it's still "science" in some sense. Then there are people who do their due diligence to understand science and the world, and either obtain a wrong result by no fault of their own, or they are fixated on a lie or illusion that they cannot extirpate from their models, even when they are aware that their model has severe problems.

The point I make is that science is really a laborious undertaking because the need for honesty is felt for those who work and do something that is valued, rather than science being "just a thing", or tantamount to technology or institutions or property.

If a hobbyist takes their hobby seriously and makes an inquiry about the world in the manner of science, then that hobbyist is doing laborious science, or a close approximation of it, even if they're not aware that this is "science". That would be the necessary starting point for a more formal inquiry, and it's the starting point every child will have if they really give a shit about science. That is, at first, science would have begun because this was intrinsically interesting, but since this lined up with laborious tasks that were already necessary to live in the world, it was very easy to make your hobby into your working life. It doesn't work the other way around - people aren't going to naturally care about science for work that they hate, out of some sense that the work is socially necessary because a manager or teacher says "this is what you must do" or "this is what you are". It's not a moral claim that the science is necessarily good because labor does it. The technocrat, proprietor, and aristocrat all have some notion of science and apply it personally. But, for all of them, science is secondary to the imperatives of what they do. For labor, science is always necessary for labor to be worth anything. Even the science of being a beast of burden requires labor to operate on its own power and thought, rather than having to be told exactly what to do every single time. Someone pushing a cart of ore has to know where to push it, how to push, to not run into people, to stay on task, and so on. All of these minute work tasks relate to other such tasks, so it's not like someone has to be a hyper-specialized cart-pusher in a mine. But, if you go into a particular workplace, even menial labor will require you to know what that workplace does, rather than fitting your own ideas into a workplace that does things differently. It seems trivial until you think about scientific management and how to arrange the peons and machines.

If however your technology is something alien to material science - say you're a financial wizard or manager - you're not fond of science that works against your interest. What is done with money isn't really a scientific phenomenon, or at least it is not directly one. Money is tied up with numerous superstitions, institutions, threats, property, and so on, which is what it primarily deals with. Everybody who studies money knows this, and a scientific inquiry into finance as a phenomenon would be aware of this history, rather than bowl over it by saying "labor is value and nothing more", or "utility is value because me wantee". Money would be meaningless if we didn't have a history of banks and states collecting tax in coin, or conditions where markets were possible.

>>7610
Money, or anything like it, is a creature of civilization. It doesn't exist with the same meaning in barbarous or nomadic society, or in village society where agriculture and herding were the primary wealth and extraction. You would need conditions where there is a lot of commerce in a tight space, and something to regulate that space, to have any stable price-setting markets, which would be the first indicator that anything could be called "money". A tally of debts is not money or a unit with the same meaning. That has always been understood as the property of whomever is in a position to hold that ledger, which very likely is someone who has an entirely private system between them and their client. Anyone can hold a tally of "personal credit" for their purposes, without that unit being respected by anyone as money. That expedient is well attested throughout history, and persists to this day. Credit-dominated economies are themselves a very different beast from the capitalism Marx wrote about.

>>7609
>The point I make is that science is really a laborious undertaking because the need for honesty is felt for those who work and do something that is valued,
I think that's excluding fundamental research from the definition of science. Fundamental research usually has a very long pay-off time. It's almost never valued at the time it's being conducted.

>If a hobbyist takes their hobby seriously and makes an inquiry about the world in the manner of science, then that hobbyist is doing laborious science
>it was very easy to make your hobby into your working life.
I'm understanding this as
<If a hobbyist does genuine science, they can turn it from a hobby into a profession.
That's just not true.

You have a decent starting idea about scientific inquiry originating from people trying to understand reality without blinders because they needed it to get stuff done. But there's no reason to think that only necessity enables unbiased science. What makes it start doesn't have to be the same as what makes it continue.

I get the impression you are channeling some kind of austerity mindset. Consider that scientific inquiry has been stifled by intellectual repression a lot, and sometimes still is. So there might be some kind of base-drive to figure out what makes reality tick.

>>7612
I never said science was "unbiased". It is always conducted by entities that are capable of it, rather than something existing in the world "in of itself". The only reason science is regarded as a spiritual authority is because independent verification of facts is inherent to any concept of science. If someone is flagrantly and contemptuous lying to another person, they are very clearly not interested in "science" - they want the exact opposite. Whether someone is honest to another person or in society is another matter. I'm assuming, in the first instance, science is useful for oneself, and the scientist is not interested in lying to themselves. That would be very pointless. Someone conducting science would be confident that anything they're doing pertains to a world they regard as real, and that their sense is related to that reality. Any biases of the observer are things that the observer would account for, rather than asserting that the bias is unknowable or says anything about the world they observe. The observer bias is corrected by regarding that there is a world outside of oneself and outside of language, and this is a basic requirement of any genuine science. If someone says "there is nothing outside of society" or "genuine inquiry demands the human subject", that is a direct attack against the idea of scientific inquiry. It's Germanic and I hate it, and this is always dripping with contempt for any science. It exists to attack thought and impose it forcibly on others, and Germans always lie.

It is my contempt for Germanism and seeing the damage it wrought that requires me to grant to science some standing above any inquiry into nature or the world. For one, we can choose another form of inquiry into the world, or regard what we do without the aims and purposes science entails. Nothing about seeing something or measuring the length of something is in of itself "science" - that is a far more basic use of sense and reason to understand the world. Science implies that the purview of it is nothing less than all that exists. There is not in principle anything that exists that would be fully outside of the purview of science. It would not be possible to use science for things which are unknown, except as a speculative exercise. But, science can resolve questions that are about known things, and construct hypotheses. They don't become theories or anything to regard as scientific fact without independently verifiable results. The purpose of the scientific inquiry would be to find facts, or at least working knowledge of anything someone does, and this implies something more thoroughgoing than an inquiry which specifically limits its purview to something less than the whole world or a category that must tie into an overall framework to be really scientific. For example, political economy was never really conducted as a "science" - it concerned moral philosophy, and made some claims about the environment humans live in. It is a category error to make scientific claims about political economy, without qualifying what you are doing and the objects involved. You wouldn't for instance say "Labor is the source of value" as a bold assertion, nor make excuses when critics of the critique make it clear the labor theory was not Marx's version of it. But, Marx's work was analyzing a particular part of capitalism - the commodity - and answering questions about it, rather than making grand narratives about "what money was" contrary to common knowledge at the time. Marx assumes you are familiar with the labor theory from classical political economy, but he eliminates a lot of the "details" that are troublesome… like the observed history, known enough to Adam Smith and certainly known today, that monetary economics did not arise in the way it was assumed until states issued coinage, nor did it automatically happen because "this was natural". Currency was destabilizing and resisted by nearly every city or nation that it was forced on, because currency worked against the interests of nearly everyone in society. This is contrary to a narrative that was insinuated - and this wasn't really insinuated by Adam Smith - that money was somehow popular or desirable, let alone that financial institutions and debt were permitted or useful. Just about everyone in history loathes the bank, and this was the great contempt during the capitalist period - fear that they would become debt-slaves. In some abstract way "it was always debt", but there would remain an expectation that men had grounds to resist slavery and the imposition of the rich against the middling. For the lower classes, slavery was effectively the default. It did not even occur to the favored or the slaves alike that it would be different, or that there was any reason to believe human politics could be different even if humanity really tried to make amends for the literally everything humans had done. If someone was going to do that, it was always understood relations towards the lowest class and the property of all who were valid was primary before any rearrangement of society was of interest to most of humanity. All that would happen is that wealth and commerce would be rearranged by some new scheme, while the essential ordering of human society remains in place, or locks in to a caste system. We are now moving towards a scientific, eugenic caste society, with the lowest caste and the second-lowest caste locked in. The lowest caste is already marked down and gratuitously attacked in open ritual sacrifice, and if we dare say it should be different, the shrieking begins. Humans cannot change. It's too late. Failed race.

That said, that is no excuse to say we cannot conduct science properly. Forced ignorance doesn't have the ruling power that the present political paradigm claims it has. The use of forced ignorance - the shouting and bullbaiting common to this failed race - has been ruinous to the rulers themselves, and cannot create the peace they insist it will. If any of the rulers breaks away from the forced ignorance and torture cult, the apparatus that has been created "corrects history". That is the great sadness of it - that many who push this enthusiastically do not think about the damage they're doing, or worse, they think they're on the good side and will repeat the same failed system until it works.

There is so much wrong in what is said now - and largely, this is because humanity already selected who lives and who dies. "Up there", in the areas where humanity gets to go on, it's the only thing they talk about, the only thing they believe in. Every political idea with currency in the 21st century is dominated by this contest. Anyone outside of the ruling club without the "password" will only be lied to, tortured, and the enjoyment of lying and torturing becomes life's prime want. Failed race.

There is no point in speaking of science with those who will only lie to us, who insist that none of us are allowed to compare notes or say what this was between each other. If we do, and transgress their "goodfacts", they shriek, then they threaten, then they attack and disappear anyone who is not already marked down for humiliation. I've seen this play out for my entire life, and I keep thinking foolishly that humans would see how this will not work for them. I can see the "inner circle" cracking, its members having less idea of what they do, the quality of people in that club degenerated beyond recognition. While some of this was just the veneer of quality no longer being tenable nor desirable for the rulers, I've seen throughout my life the quality of leaders dropped off a cliff. Institutions designed to produce Yes Men and creatures like Netanyahu will produce exactly what someone would expect, if they saw this beast from afar and held humanity and society in total and correct contempt. Science would make that view of humanity plain as day to a child. I don't know how anyone cannot see it without being willfully naive. Most children I knew, in one way or another, did see it enough. The people who truly love this shit are a minority, even after selecting for each other and promoting their Satanic faith.

Mind, I don't think "science is the cure", in the sense that if you do science, you'll come to the right answers. We're here because science did become a spiritual authority, with disastrous consequences. But, when science among the laboring classes was utterly destroyed - because a lot of applied science and the precursors to science didn't come from any academic or elite pedigree - science in the genuine sense ceased to exist.

Claims of empiricism and so on are not "inherent to science". They are useful for formal knowledge, and it makes a lot of sense for someone conducting science to look for empirical evidence and record it. Popperism uses legal threats and bullbaits to lock in the screaming Satanic cult in the institutions.

>>7612
>Fundamental research
The concept of what things are is not confirmed by science. Science doesn't get to decide what things ARE, or declare that some category exists. Science can confirm if a category is valid based on evidence, but what things are is entirely a question of metaphysics. You would need to agree on what anything is before you speak of scientific proof of its existence, and these concepts of what anything is can be independently confirmed or judged. We don't need a lawyer or expert to tell us what a woman is or relitigate common knowledge. Those who do show their absolute contempt for science, language, and the people they lie to. They never believe in the lie for themselves, and emphasize the distinction and "right of transgression". Germanism is depraved.

The conjecture of a novel field of knowledge is contingent on common language to construct the conjecture, or some example that can be described to say "this is what I mean".
Science does not deal well with vagaries in definition, but in the world and in all of the ways anyone can communicate, vagaries and ambiguities are always present, simply because every idea presented is necessarily incomplete. It is contingent on a world outside of it to exist - none of these forms exist freely floating or immaculate. They only exist in a world that allowed them, without being necessarily tied to any other thing, or all things being bound to each other.

>>7616
Good grief don't get hung up on my choice of words.

I give you an example of what i mean with "fundamental research". In 1905 Einstein did a peace of science on atoms and photons that eventually enabled lasers, roundabout in the 70s. This type of science is commonly referred to as fundamental, because a lot of other stuff builds on top of it to make it usable. It's derived from a building construction metaphor, first you build the foundation (from the word origin "fundament" ) and then you build the rest of the house on top of that. I guess it would be less confusing to say "foundational", but it's a really old expression, and they talked funny in yee olden days.

>>7618
I know what you meant. Einstein didn't declare what atoms and photons were from nothing, nor was Einstein the grand arbiter of science. Everything he writes is on topics that were known at the time.

I'm saying that no foundation is taken for granted, including the most basic. If you build a laser, you're going to ask about every one of its operations, rather than following the Machine God that told you what photons were.

Every so often, you see a buildup within the framework and cosmology of nonsense. The Standard Model was decided by institutional decree, and we're supposed to accept it as dogma precisely because it retards any development. That tends to be what institutional science does - promote dogmatism which makes knowing anything about science impossible.

It is expected that a scientist would be able to independently reproduce the basis for everything they do, or understand the papers rather than saying "Einstein told me dogmatically what light is and we must follow the Machine God". For one, arguments about what light was - a photon or a wavelength - remained after Einstein, and Einstein answered one observation problem. My belief is that light is neither of those things, and light has no "foundational" characteristics in matter, but that cannot be verified. It would override the idiocy of "wave-partical duality" which has more to do with Germanic assertions. When light is described as particles or corpsucles, this is a supposition rather than an imperious declaration that this is what things "fundamentally are". I don't think you're getting my arguments about science.

Basically, if science were dogmatic, its applications would be almost automatic from the foundational research, and it would fill every viable niche if sufficient knowledge processing were available. That's not what science is, nor how science is reproduced.
Like I said, this dogma produces Yes Men who will in the long term lose genuine understanding. They only mimic science, and any connection with the past or genuine science or knowledge is destroyed. It is replaced with a cosmology that is essentially Satanic and denies that knowledge is possible. This has already gripped the universities and asserted itself ultraviolently. When that is not enough, forced drugging and torture are the norm. The drugging was promulgated in the 1990s. The torture is already started at the fringes, will become standard procedure and the social norm by the end of this decade.

In many respects, optics scarcely advanced from the 17th century, and what advances did happen were from some guy running experiments because he had means to do so. The corruption of Germanic institutional science has made this approach inadmissible.

Einstein for instance is repeating the claim of Newton's belief of corpsucle light, which was credible enough for the purposes Newton and Einstein saw for the photon. Both are looking at large-scale physics rather than particle physics and quantum mechanics - Einstein made his thought on the latter very clear.

A laser is doing more than "following the theory". It is not a small thing to find suitable materials and tools to build such a thing, or make it useful. Plus, the aim of the laser wasn't just to make a shiny light, but a vision of building energy transmission or energy weapons. It didn't work for a lot of reasons.

>>7619
>For one, arguments about what light was - a photon or a wavelength - remained after Einstein, and Einstein answered one observation problem. My belief is that light is neither of those things, and light has no "foundational" characteristics in matter, but that cannot be verified. It would override the idiocy of "wave-partical duality"
Well there's always Pilot wave theory, where photons are particles and the wave-like interference behavior in the double slit experiment is explained by the quantum wave that sort of "guides" the path of the photon. That way you don't need the duality stuff.

>>7623
>A laser is doing more than "following the theory". It is not a small thing to find suitable materials and tools to build such a thing
No it's really easy to build a laser from basic stuff, if you know how it works, could have been done over 200 years ago. If you're ok with a blue-ish color and loads of UV, you can make one on the basis of an ark-light, and you can get it to laze if you configure the electrodes in a long narrow slit. People call it the scrap metal laser, it's a common intermediate tinkerer project.

>Plus, the aim of the laser wasn't just to make a shiny light, but a vision of building energy transmission or energy weapons. It didn't work for a lot of reasons.
Laser energy transmission works now, and since we can match the band-gap of photovoltaic capture devices with the wave-length of the laser emitter devices, it can be really efficient. Laboratory results get well over 90% efficient, and some trial runs with practical high power versions got over 70%. The reason you're not seeing this deployed is because cables are so much cheaper to make.

Scientists wanted lasers fore their suitability as scientific instruments to conduct really accurate measurements. I doubt they really gave a shit about weapons. When lasers reached the engineering crowd they mainly went for etching and cutting or information transmission.

You could weaponize lasers in a serious way, but then it becomes a large combination array in the Terra-watt range, which would be a sizeable fixed installation, good for defense but hardly useful for offense. No military would ever go for that, they want a thing they can take with them and point at a foe.

>>7624
"Lasers" imply an energy source for illumination. Couldn't make a laser without a lightbulb. You could make the phenomenon of a beam of focused light, but without a very useful notion of what you are doing, and the mechanics of this device as a general rule, you won't get far.

This is why mechanics was destroyed - to destroy any capacity for mental connections, so that science and technology would be independently reproduced by workers. Taking the tools from the worker was the first task of the revolution - to damn them to institutional authority and its pedagogy. To destroy any genuine science.
That's what I mean with these statements. It's easy to say "you have the theory moving history". It's another for someone to independently reproduce the machines and command them. Institutions do not want that. They exist to choke the world and ensure that the slaves obey. In this way, technology has frozen in place or regressed, and science has been utterly annihilated. It is only reproduced by mimicry of reduced forms, parodic forms befitting the Germanic slave-religion.

If we had genuine science, people would build these lasers and technological implements themselves, rather than submitting to "the theory", pedagogy, and institutions bullbaiting and shrieking that we're too retarded to do anything. Germanism does not want any science to exist. They want a feudal, Satanic society befitting their race, and it will be nothing but a race.

That is, what I'm saying would not be controversial, and I wouldn't have to relitigate this. They simply do not want me to live - do not want anyone to live. Eugenism and democide preclude "science", and must make any concept other than "The Science" inadmissible. That's why this is confusing to you. Recapitulation of institutions' chokehold is the only thing humanity knows now. Those who would think apart from that control are attacked, unemployable. Whatever life the condemned have is inadmissible in public life, and anything "outside of society" is attacked if it is at all offensive to the eugenic creed. The only science allowed to exist independent of eugenics is that which is deemed irrelevant, and it is easy to inject pseudoscience and "memes", through eager agentur and fags.

I don't think it's admissible to think of science as anything other than "institutional authority". The concept of independent verification of facts - that those who sit in courts of law would be accountable to any world - is no longer admissible as "real thought" among a Satanic race. That is what humans are now, and really, that is what a large faction of humans always were and successfully imposed on reality. Failed race.

Sure, I can say this until my face is blue, but you'll just recapitulate this, not really understanding what you are saying. The institutions are self-evident and eternally imminent. They have a monopoly on all facts - monopoly on reality itself.

If this weren't the case, this Germanic religion would be attacked ruthlessly and exterminated as a clear and present danger to all around it. Its adherents would be declared Absolutely retarded, placed in human zoos to make clear that a Satanic race cannot be abided under any circumstances. That is the only course of action now. There is no negotiating with a committed Satanic race that chooses to be such and makes clear their commitment to that creed, regardless of their motives. It is what it is.

That would be a primary condition. See how these Satanics like having a knife at their throat at all times and being nerve stapled. Make them beg, make them crawl. But, they do not think. It does not occur to them that anything they did was wrong. They will burn in the Hell they created for the sake of their retarded race.

Then, perhaps we could have science. Those are the only conditions where it will be possible to speak of such a thing in public, or even sustain anything in private life where we can speak to each other without the insinuation came common to humans - now a Satanic race incapable of even the most basic honesty in speech or actions.

Or, they can, you know, stop attacking us, which is very simple and doesn't require anyone to die or any great technology. But, a Satanic race will refuse to cease their assault. If that happened, they start shrieking. It would be worse for them to not attack us than it is for them to be stripped and beaten and placed into their natural slavery. They respect slavery. They have no concept of the most basic notion of a free society, because they hate the idea of such and always have. A Satanic race and its members never, ever change regarding this.

Given what humans are now, humans would have to be effective abolished and irrelevant. There would still be human bodies and human-like minds, but they would be ephermeral existences and deemed irrelevant. The human subject would be deemed politically irrelevant in total, and human institutions could not be permitted any judgement. The human race would be judged permanently and incurably insane, and what remaining faculties they possess would recognize that they are a failed race and consider their political situation accordingly. It would no longer be a question of what humans "choose" to do, in that sense. There would be choices - they always come back to the interest of those entities who are the only ones who care about any of this, which is us. But, the choices would no longer be made on the basis of self-interest or a presumption of human rationality, because humans would be judged correctly as permanently insane and retarded by themselves. They would be forced to regard a world outside of them, and recognize the failure of any human institution and conceit is eternal. They would only know (a) there is a world, and (b) it is knowable, but it is one that human history has made clear humans have no ability to know because of their deliberate and repeated failure in the most basic deeds required for that. The remaining human knowledge would fritter in and out of existence, with the best of them recognizing the "kernel" or "seed" of genuine knowledge and science. It would be seen as dire necessity to feed a base of knowledge out of a sense that ceasing the habitual lying of an insane race like humanity is worth more than any political benefit of habitual lying and the thrill of torture that is now humanity's existence.

There is no aristocracy or "hidden world" where humans are allowed any sacrosanctity. The aristocracy and elite are why we are condemned to this. They were always insane and should have been ignored. In the past, this would have been very simple.

Perhaps there will be something in future history that works against the present trend of the eugenic creed. But, eugenics ensured that humans can never be anything else. If eugenics faces terminal defeat, they have already vowed a crusade of unlimited terror to restore their religion. Only a greater and eternal terror would even secure peaceful conditions where reversal of this tendency is possible. It would be a permanent tyranny at the least, and it would also forestall any political concept except despotism, which will be the final condition of human political life. Humans don't know anything else. This would probably be the best outcome compared to the continuation of the republican idea.

There is not, and never can be, the world of imagined "free individuals" that you all seem to believe is inevitable. That was destroyed very early on, and every time someone asked what would actually be necessary for that - or even to do basic things like "not start retarded race wars" - the shriek machine started, and fags got their way. We're supposed to kowtow to them apparently, rather than anything that would have been basic shit. Now, it went on for too long. The last time it could have been averted in human history was the 1990s, and it was basically an act of spite by that point.

Probably what will happen is a fatalistic existence of a few cells where people talk about these things, knowing that nothing will ever actually happen. The people who wanted a different world will enter cults and think only of an afterlife. Humanity is beyond any saving. The public was turned into this willfully and proudly. A Satanic race knows nothing else.