Purpose being?
All of this is intellectually dishonesty coping. If Christianity “filled the hole” of Rome’s collapse, it truly did not create Western civilization, only adding on to what’s there.
You are pretending Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are the same creation myth.
Nietzsche hasn’t had space to be tested, other than the fact that he reflected Roman Imperial thought. Perhaps Nazi Germany, which was widely successful except for the whole killing Jews thing and World War II thing.
The self-domestication of homo-sapiens primates in order to let them go further than what their instincts would permit if left to themselves.Purpose being?
And again, the Ancient Greeks and Imperial Romans were widely successful such that they lurk in the bedrock of the West today something 3000 years later. Yet you say it doesn’t count for whatever reason.
Interesting, of course, that's a very typical view these days.
If you haven't noticed the domestication process never ends very well, it comes in cycles throughout history to be sure, but destruction is always the final form along with all the conflicts it brings. The problem of always trying to override natural instincts that can never be completely overridden at all, hence why destruction is always the final form.
Last edited:
We could become Jewish tranny cyborgs (that seems to be the actual unironic intent), but of course the void would eventually consume us anyways given a probability of material death over infinite time.Interesting, of course, that's a very typical view these days.
If you haven't noticed the domestication process never ends very well, it comes in cycles throughout history to be sure, but destruction is always the final form along with all the conflict it brings. The problem of always trying to override natural instincts that can never be completely overridden at all, hence why destruction is always the final form.
In what way?
After the Roman Empire collapsed, there was little left.
Of course, they are inconsistent. But you don't discard an engine because it has a few malfunctions. Only practical testing (a race with other engines, say) will decide if its flaws are disqualifying or not. All systems of thought have inconsistencies, Spengler, Nietzsche and Marx included. They are just slightly less visible because we have become better at philosophical window dressingYou are pretending Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are the same creation myth.
Not tested? Worthless ... That is just the way it is
Roman imperial thought said that every legionary should become Caesar?
The 1000-year Reich that lasted 13 and 1/2 years. You call that successful?
For endless centuries they've tried to perfect the ability to control and influence human behavior with its multitude of natural instincts, yet, every time they try to do so it always ends in horrendous failure time and time again.
Interesting, of course, that's a very typical view these days.
If you haven't noticed the domestication process never ends very well, it comes in cycles throughout history to be sure, but destruction is always the final form along with all the conflicts it brings. The problem of always trying to override natural instincts that can never be completely overridden at all, hence why destruction is always the final form.
- Farming (10 000 years ago)
- Cities (6 000 years ago)
- Industry and tech (250 years ago)
Of course there are cycles of creative destruction (Schumpeter). That is impossible to avoid in a process of trial and error.
And what took thousands of years to accomplish will all be destroyed along with being washed away entirely within only a matter of a span of a few years.
If there is anything I am certain of, it is that.
Nope, it will be creatively destroyed, just like at the end of the Roman Empire.And what took thousands of years to accomplish will all be destroyed along with being washed away entirely within only a matter of a span of a few years.
Much destruction is needed to allow something new to grow
You are deluded. Look at history. Neither the Mongols or the Germans or the Arabs ever destroyed civilization entirely. There is no reason to think that the coming crisis will be different.If there is anything I am certain of, it is that.
I think this is nonsense given the well established Roman pagan and Platonic influences into Christianity - again, down to incorporating Apotheosis into its system. Could you imagine Fisherman Peter claiming that his followers would become gods through Jesus?
The Holy Trinity itself was a product of Platonic influence of Christianity. Plato identified three aspects of God's creation - the mental thought, the demiurge (creator), and the sustainer. That's literally the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Granted, I think the Early Christians were well familiar with Plato and had the Trinity from day 1, but still. The amount of Roman and Hellenic pagan influence on Christianity is undeniable - Saint Gregory the Great quotes Cicero repeatedly, Saint Augustine is filled with references to the Aeneid.
So great was the influence that the Jews - perhaps rightly so - called the Christians idolaters, pagans dressed up as Jews.
There was little left? How so did the Roman culture evaporate?
Just because a nation converts from one religion to another doesn't mean there's an entire cultural purging, those ancient elements still lurk in the background. Saint Theodora, Justinian's Aphroditic beauty, would re-enact Zeus's Swan seduction for the aristocrats. Look at China and Japan, despite largely converting to Buddhism, look to the degree Confucianism and native Chinese / Japanese folk belief influenced Buddhism.
Even today, despite the American West worships Marvel Superheroes and sexually awkward British teens waving magical sticks, even that still has Jesus imagery lurking in the background, with good ole Harry Potter dying and resurrecting to kill Voldemort.
It was more of a devilishly clever reference, because Genesis 1 has God say things into existence, Genesis 2 has God molding existing matter. The Gnostics were clever enough to note this inconsistency and used Genesis 1 to refer to the Monad's creation, Genesis 2 to the demiurge's creation.
Christianity only got "tested" because one king wanted a new Platonic philosophy. That's it. We wouldn't be having this discussion if he chose Manicheanism or Mithraism.
Theologically, apotheosis was for the noble and warrior. Not everyone made it, most ended up in hell, doomed to suffer till they were reincarnated into another chance again. But those few astonishing men could become gods through their own effort and willpower. Caesar was one of those who became a literal Roman god - part of the reason why their monarchial lineage was literally worshipped (that and claiming genetic descent from Aeneas, the son of Aphrodite).
I qualified my statement. But turning the homosexual-ridden Weimar Republic into a nation capable of conquering all of Europe in the span of a few years is quite the accomplishment, it took the whole world to stop them.
Last edited:
They didn't have nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and weren't dependent on fossil fuels either.
[This time will be different, and in the end, we'll be lucky if a few human beings survive at all in the aftermath.
]Of course, I'm the eternal pessimist towards such things.
I disagree they don"t need demons or the devil they do all they fkn work alone this creature is way worst thant that
Tech cuts both ways. It destroys more, but it also allows easier survival.They didn't have nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and weren't dependent on fossil fuels either.
The danger of Nukes was vastly exaggerated by the military-industrial complex during the Cold War to get higher budgets. Even if Nukes are used on a large scale, only places of high population density will be targeted. If you look on a map, you will realize that these are few and that there are huge empty areas between them. Then there is fallout. All right. But how serious is that, really? Chernobyl released more radioactive pollution than several military nukes. Yet the exclusion zone around it is now basically a natural reserve, less than 50 years after the accident. Sure, there are a few mutated pine trees and birds but who cares?
A nuclear exchange will drastically reduce human population, that is for sure. But that is actually an advantage. At any given time, most humans contribute close to nothing. Dropping from 7 billion to 1 billion, or even 100 million, is not a major obstacle to continued progress. On the contrary. It will open the way to new experiments that cannot even be contemplated right now
Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, the "War Scroll" in particular.
Also, in several passages of the Talmud, it is made clear that Alexander deeply impressed the Jews (like everyone else in the Middle East).
Also, before the Hellenistic period, there are no trace of large scale Messianic expectations in Judaism. In Isaiah and the other prophets, there are a few references to the renewal of the Davidic monarchy (by an anointed King like David) but these allusions are few, very unclear and do not seem to have been considered a major issue (they probably originated in factions that were not in the majority). It is only after the passage of Alexander that we see these allusions morph into the kind of warlike messianic hopes that we see in the books of the Maccabees and later in the Dead Sea Scroll texts.
Just to be clear, I do not think that Jesus is based on Alexander directly.
The warlike Jewish Messiah is. However, in the Gospels, this warlike Messiah is rejected as evil (in the person of Barabbas, whose name is a Messianic title, "Son of the Father") while Jesus is given exactly the opposite persona of the holy loser-savior.
Last edited:
More nuclear radiation yields within nuclear weapons versus that of a broken core of a nuclear power plant. Not a very good comparison and you didn't talk about the residual effects of atmospheric winds blowing the debris in air-jet streams circulating the globe either. A nuclear core is still nonetheless contained in one area, a nuclear explosion that is weaponized not so much. A broken core of a nuclear power plant is way more easily contained.
About that, you are wrong. Regarding fallout, Chernobyl is a good comparison. The dust of Chernobyl is equivalent of the dust of a Nuke fallout. It too was carried by winds, etc. Only the local effect of a Nuke is different. Yes, cities would be obliterated. But, as I said, this is a tiny fraction of the globe's surface.
Again, you are wrong. Most nukes still in the stockpiles are around 100 kt in yield. These have a direct effect on only a radius of around 10-20 km around the point of impact. Megaton-range nukes, which are no longer available (because increased guidance precision made them militarily unnecessary in the 70s), might have an effect in a radius of 50 km or so, but that is still small.A nuclear core is still nonetheless contained in one area, a nuclear explosion that is weaponized not so much.
Apart from that, the effects of a Nuke are due to dust transport (by wind and water), which is equivalent to the radioactive dust released by the burning reactor at Chernobyl. In fact, most current nukes would create less fallout than Chernobyl did
Depending on what nuclear threshold yield we're talking about concerning actual megatons, if you were talking about nuclear weapons of the 50s, 60s, 70s, or even the 80s I would agree with you, however, modern ICBMS are way more powerful carrying much larger yields altogether. Makes Chernobyl look like a sneeze by comparison.
You are misinformed. Over time, warhead yields decreased as ICBM precision increased. Today's warheads are still those of the 70s and 80s. Nearly all have yields in the 100kt range.Depending on what nuclear threshold yield we're talking about concerning megatons, if you were talking about nuclear weapons of the 50s, 60s, 70s, or even the 80s I would agree with you, however, modern ICBMS are way more powerful carrying much larger yields altogether. Makes Chernobyl look like a sneeze by comparison.
I'm not talking about range or precision, I'm talking about actual payload.
Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W62, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W89, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W76Depending on what nuclear threshold yield we're talking about concerning actual megatons, if you were talking about nuclear weapons of the 50s, 60s, 70s, or even the 80s I would agree with you, however, modern ICBMS are way more powerful carrying much larger yields altogether. Makes Chernobyl look like a sneeze by comparison.
Last edited:
Oh man. "in the 100kt range" means "warheads of 100, 150, 200 kt yield (explosive power in kilo-tons of TNT)"I'm not talking about range, I'm talking about payload.
The range (distance to the target) is expressed in km or miles ...
Megatons and kilotons concerning payloads have evolved quite a bit over time considerably though.
Last edited:
What?Megatons and kilotons concerning payloads have evolved quite a bit overtime though.
No. In the 60s, early ICBMs had Megaton range warheads. Since the mid-seventies, with the advent of higher precision MIRVed warheads, yields decreased to around 100-200kt. Recently, the newest improved warheads used on SLBMs (submarines) are even smaller than that.
The idea is that if you can destroy the target with a small, low-collateral damage, warhead, you get to maybe use the enemy's infrastructure when you invade (hypothetically). Of course, the technology still exists to make bigger warheads but all those that existed were dismantled as a result of the START treaties. If a nuclear war starts, it is likely that the belligerents will quickly lose the capacity to make new warheads (nuke factories are among priority targets). Therefore only warheads that exist today are likely to be used.
Do your homework, please ...
Outdated data.American Trident SLBM 450kt
Russian SS ICBM 800kt
Time for you to do some research.
This is the current US SLBM warhead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W76 Yield is below 100kt
The SS-18 warheads that you mention are in the process of being retired. Unless the crisis happens very soon, these will have disappeared by then. Even today, it is quite doubtful that these old 70s era missiles are actually operational because of maintenance problems. They are kept officially in the stats only to be used as bargaining chips in negotiations.
The latest Russian ICBM is the RS-24 Yars, with 150kt Warheads. Within a few years, all older missiles will be retired.
All militaries have strong incentives to retire old systems, which cost a lot to maintain. Unless nuclear war happens really soon (very unlikely), no warhead above 150 kt will be left.
Outdated? It's from 2020. I seriously doubt they got rid of all of them in two years span, and let us not forget about the classified weapons either off the public recorded books.
Last edited:
Today, there is no reason to keep useless warheads that cost money to maintain and may not work reliably due to obsolescence issues (try to find a working part for a 1975 vacuum cleaner ...)Outdated? It's from 2020. I seriously doubt they got rid of all of them in two years span, and let us not forget about the classified weapons either off the public recorded books.
The real number of warheads of the US and Russia are almost certainly below the official figures because that will enable them later to appear to "reduce" warhead counts by lowering the official figures without actually lowering the number of real warheads.
In any case, only newer warheads receive adequate maintenance anyway. And these are all of small yields (max 150kt)
It is doubtful that any of the older ones (even if still on the books) would work if used.
A warhead is a very delicate piece of machinery. Unless you completely disassemble it at least once a year and replace all faulty components, it is very unlikely to work. Also, you have to remember that tests have not been carried out since the 1990s. Who knows which warheads actually work? In this context, only the very newest ones have any chance to be reliable.
Last edited:
Well, for decades there were talks about nuclear withdrawal deliberations however this year I think we can safely say that isn't going to happen.
Sure, there are a lot of old weapons still in circulation but who is to say that they haven't updated them overtime or replaced them with weapons we don't even know about. But sure, I can go along with some of your thinking there.
Sure. But a lot of dismantling has already occurred. Look at the numbers today compared to those of the late 80s.
Militaries have very low budgets now, compared to what they had during the Cold War, when most of the warheads were designed. They have to concentrate on a really small number of systems to be able to maintain them. Cold War nukes were not designed to be cheap to maintain.Sure, there are a lot of old weapons still in circulation but who is to say that they haven't updated them overtime or replaced them with weapons we don't even know about. But sure, I can go along with some of your thinking there.
Also military procurement is highly corrupt now, even in the West. Look at the F-35. It is quite obviously a huge scam to distribute money to every congressional district in the States. When you waste money like that on corrupt procurement, it is very unlikely that much is left for maintenance, let alone improvement of existing systems.
Of course, in Russia, it is much worse.
True, but governments also lie about inventories and stockpiles where there is plausible deniability on virtually everything. And, I don't buy for a second they're trying to make less-lethal weapons with nuclear proliferation either.
They make smaller nukes because they are cheaper (less high-purity Plutonium, etc. needed) and because they are smaller. That in turn, makes the missiles carrying them also cheaper. Besides, smaller warheads are harder to destroy by anti-missile systems and they allow missiles to carry more decoys for additional protection. Finally, the idea of smaller, more precise warheads is not to kill less people, but to destroy less stuff; stuff that you may want to use (roads, bridges, airports, fuel depots)True, but governments also lie about inventories and stockpiles where there is plausible deniability on virtually everything. And, I don't buy for a second they're trying to make less-lethal weapons with nuclear proliferation either.
Since the mid-1970s, the average warhead yields have been decreasing continuously for all these reasons.
In the 1950s, Megaton-class warheads were designed because missile precision was low (several km probable error). But megaton warheads are a huge waste, in fissile material, missile size, etc. That is why warhead miniaturization, not yield increase, has been the main trend since almost the beginning. The biggest warhead ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba (50 Mt), was a Khrushchev-era stunt which had zero military value. With a weapon of that size, most of the energy is vented into space ...
Ok, @MarquisDeSade , with what does that long digression on Nukes leave us?
With the idea that the complete disappearance of civilization, even if Nukes are used, is unlikely, right?
@ServusLuciferi , thoughts ?
With the idea that the complete disappearance of civilization, even if Nukes are used, is unlikely, right?
@ServusLuciferi , thoughts ?
I personally think that widespread infrastructure failure leading to mass death and killing is far more likely than nuclear catastrophe. Babel syndrome.
I mean if we switch to digital currency, like destroying the power grid or the internet would literally collapse civilization. If we run out of gasoline civilization would also collapse.
But idk, these things you can’t readily predict. There’s very limited data. Despite media sensationalism, I can assure you that very few policy analysts thought Russia would invade Ukraine.
Whats your path, Hellenism?Yeah, I've noticed there is a big trend with New Ageism and stuff like Wicca with foids these days, not just millennial women either but quite a few from generation z as well. It's actually pretty funny because if these bitches were in a majority of past ancient civilizations from whence all those beliefs come from a majority of the men back then would put them in their place very quickly. Watching these new age bitches is a real treat and very amusing because their female liberation bullshit wouldn't fly in a majority of ancient pagan cultures. I say that as a pagan man myself.
In all actuality and very ironically also, feminism historically in all actuality is a by-product of politically reformed Christianity, simple facts.
[One of many reasons why I despise Christianity along with all Abrahamic religions.]
I also agree feminism is just Judeo-Christian values in the natural course of progression - “There is no male nor female in the Kingdom of God, for we are all made in God’s image, both men and women have an equal divine spark and have a possibility to be saved equally, the Virgin Mary is the greatest among the Saints…”
Granted, I do unironically think there are a number of intellectually profound women, but they are few and far in between, they get drowned out by the mentally stunted, dreg diversity hires who parrot mainstream talking points.
Last edited:
Mostly, that and Etruscan, but wherever there are the delightful sounds of chaos, or that of a crow, coyote, fox, jackal, stag, snake, scorpion, ram, or hare playing tricks on people is basically my religion if you understand those references at all.
“There is no male nor female in the Kingdom of God, for we are all made in God’s image, both men and women have an equal divine spark and have a possibility to be saved equally, the Virgin Mary is the greatest among the Saints…” Precisely.
Last edited:
We better hope such weapons along with the biological kind aren't used otherwise we can kiss all our asses goodbye.
Hopefully, you're right and we never have to find out otherwise.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
