The temptation.

There are two ways in which we can look at the past, firstly, concerning say the 1960’s, we can say that the 1960’s were much better in a way or relatively for white people, in that white people were relatively more powerful and secure in the 1960’s. Secondly, we can all say “Daaaaang! It is so dated and old fashioned! Look how primitive it was! I’m glad I’m in 2019!” This is the temptation of technology. For example, London in 1969 was 99% white, but non-whites will denigrate the past by saying “Oh my God! The 60’s!? How old fashioned is that!? Look at the haircuts!” This is because some non-whites have little to no past. For example, try to put your mind in the mind of an African, “the past” to Africans was segregation or slavery, therefore, they do not care about or want to know about the past. But why should white people care? Why just because Africans do not care, should white people also not care about their past? It is like how in August 2017, in The Guardian, Afua Hirsch questioned whether Nelson’s Column should remain in place, with the implication it might be removed. She argued that the London monument is a symbol of white supremacy because Horatio Nelson opposed the abolitionist movement. Why should we white people care? Non-whites are the future. White people do want to know about and hold on to their past. The further you go back in ‘time’ the more primitive life was and therefore, the more innocent. Today white people are the unfashionable. Fashion and technology move on and non-whites are now fashionable and will become more fashionable in the future. The Victorians are no longer fashionable. Empire was lost because of technological temptation and because it became unfashionable. Think of this, in the afterlife, would The Beatles choose to live in 1969 London or 2019 London (which is over 50% non-white)? Considering the 1960’s were much more primitive and innocent, and because their fame and fortune depends on it, I expect they will choose to exist in 1969 London in the afterlife. In fact, despite every white person’s outspoken leftist tendencies down here on earth, I bet you the vast majority of white people in the afterlife (when fashion does not matter) hypocritically choose to live and exist in the ‘time’ periods of their birth or youth, in that most people will go back in ‘time’ as far as possible. I know I will at the least live in the innocent 80’s! This is because the further you go back in ‘time’, relatively the more primitive life was and the more powerful and secure white people were. For example, I bet you that a white person who was born in the 1920’s, despite having outspokenly leftist tendencies today, will choose to exist in the 1920’s, 1930’s or 1940’s time periods in the afterlife. (That is unless they are tempted by an iPad to exist in the 21st century?) This is because white people were relatively much more powerful, secure and better off in 1920’s, 1930’s and 1940’s etc. Plus despite the Holocaust, those decades are much more primitive and innocent. Think of this also, Jesus Christ and the Buddha, despite being ancient, primitive and old fashioned men are still eternally more fashionable than anyone alive today and always will be. If there is such a thing as a “resurrection” for over-the-hill artists (such as The Beatles), it will require the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism. This is because it makes us look back to the poor, primitive, prehistoric, unfashionable and past, instead of the rich, advanced, modern, fashionable and future. So what do you choose power or fashion? Fashion is ephemeral and insignificant. Fashion can be controlled. To attain the power and the glory you have to look back instead of forward. I choose the power. The two ways of looking at the past should give precedence to power first, technology second. In the afterlife we will be both powerful and fashionable. Booyackasha! Wicked! Innit!

Augustus of Prima Porta, 1st century.



Consider compassion, how can Australopithecus or Lower Palaeolithic man be compassionate toward animals, when they themselves were not yet masters of the animal kingdom or even worse still prey themselves? It is impossible, compassion simply did not exist. Compassion is technical, in that you must, for instance, first attain advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure such as gunpowder, muskets, rifles, nuclear weapons, automobiles, militaries, police, emergency services, roads, buildings, bridges and skyscrapers etc before you can be compassionate toward animals. It is not a case of hey compassion for compassion’s sake like the Buddha. Compassion is not free of charge, it is a definite and tangible deal or bargain. Only now that I am invincibly safe and secure from wild animals in my city, town or fortress and surrounded by guns, and now that I have an overabundance and surplus of food, energy and resources etc can or will I be compassionate toward animals. It is like saying to ‘bear’ “I have a nuke now, therefore I am compassionate toward you.” This is something bear will never understand, in that it is ironic that once you attain nuclear weapons that you are therefore by definition compassionate toward animals. To reiterate, compassion is something technical, it is only attained through a collective effort, through taming the wild and through civilisation. You can only be compassionate once there is no competition.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s