The collective conscious has concluded that the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference.
I use the phrase "collective conscious" from the philosophy that original thought is extinct. We could debate if it ever existed, but we will save that discussion for another day.
The essence of life is time. We all have an allotted amount of time, in which we have the free will to choose how it's spent. Historically speaking, that would basically be used almost entirely in some form of survival. In the modern world, it's spent escaping nihilism.
We do the best we can to become "comfortably numb."
As time goes on, one can't help but ponder their existence.
We are stuck asking the question, "What's this Life for?"
At some point time becomes synonymous with boredom. When that occurs we begin to stare into the abyss. After staring into the abyss long enough, the abyss begins to stare back.
That abyss is a mirror named Karma for which one cannot unsee.
Long time readers of My Cousin the Carp are well aware of The White Genocide Question. It is a subject that I have extensively posted about since the blog's inception, way back in 2014. Therefore, I took considerable interest when I stumbled upon an article today on my newsfeed from the Guardian titled: US to bar some South Africans over claims of anti-white discrimination. What I found even more interesting was the subtitle of the article, which reads: "Announcement of visa restrictions follows Trump’s false claims of ‘white genocide’ taking place in South Africa."
I don't know anything about the Guardian. I certainly don't have them bookmarked. Any publications who feel the need to insert their opinion into the "news" doesn't adhere to journalism ethics, so essentially they're equivalent to a tabloid.
That being said, their arbitrary stance on the validity of "white genocide" is irrelevant. What matters is that the Trump administration has inserted the "white genocide" talking point into the mainstream, to the degree that even tabloid trash like the Guardian are forced to address it.
Sure, braindead conformists will nod along in agreement with the "false" claims of white genocide, but those same people will also nod along to anything.
I forget his name, but a famous painter once said something like, "how fortunate for governments that its people do not think."
What the masses "think" are determined by those who battle over control of the information systems. The fact that anti-White publications are using pro-White talking points lets everyone know who is winning that battle.
Imagine it's 2014 and you're reading the following article by an anti-White "news" source:
The US has announced visa restrictions on some South Africans as Donald Trump’s administration continues to claim that South Africa’s government racially discriminates against white minority Afrikaners.
The announcement did not specify individuals who were barred from the US. Trump has spent his second term falsely claiming there is a “white genocide” in South Africa and railing against its affirmative action policies.
Since the start of last year, the US has cut aid to South Africa, barred it from this year’s G20 summit in Miami and set up a refugee programme for Afrikaners and other South African racial minorities. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has been dismantling refugee and asylum programmes for people fleeing war and persecution.
“The South African people are being failed by a government that is destroying its economy through an obsessive pursuit of racial grievance against the Afrikaner minority,” the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, said in a post on X.
Philosophy is the idea that man can come up with questions that via his own reasoning he can answer.
The following is an official definition.
The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.
The problem with philosophy is we assume that because we can ask the question, that we can also answer it.
Take Hume for example:
If God wills to prevent evil but cannot, then He is not omnipotent. If He can prevent evil but does not, then he is not good. In either case he is not God.
While there will certainly be those who read Hume's philosophical statement and find it to be accurate, or even genius, it is actually rather short-sighted and ignorant.
Asking unknowable questions that you've determined the binary set of answers to is silly at best. Hume wasn't a philosopher, he was someone with a God complex and a lot of time to think. Give an 80 IQ hillbilly enough time to think and even he could come up with some profound questions.
The problem with most people in the intellectual realm is that they believe that they can conceptualize all the answers. That if they're somehow able to ask the question, they are also able to answer it.
The Bible illustrates this well with pottery:
Romans 9:20-21 "Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, 'Why did You make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?"
Imagine molding some clay into a bowl, and after a period of time that clay thinks it is smarter than the potter because it is a bowl?
I'm convinced that everything is luck. That doesn't mean that I believe in atheism, but all things competition essentially comes down to some form of luck, regardless of skill level.
The thing mathematicians get wrong in the realm of statistical probabilities is the variable of time.
Take poker for instance. Theory says that if you get your chips in with a statistical advantage, eventually over a period of time you'll be ahead. But how much time? Math in infinite, a person's time is finite.
So, lets say it takes the math 1000 years to work itself out, and you only play poker for 15 years. Lets say that you consistently get your chips in the pot at a collective 60% expected win rate, but you only win 35% of the time. You're just left to assume that all those times you're getting your money in "good" that the math is going to eventually work itself out. But it's almost guaranteed that it won't.
Critics might say, "the best poker players in the world are basically just math nerds, if what you're saying is true, how do they consistently win?" Simple. They're consistently lucky. If all poker players were using math engines to make their decisions, every poker player would still have different outcomes. Some would be winners. Most would be losers. The math only works when time is excluded as the primary variable, which is impossible for humans. Thus, luck is the primary variable in math-based poker theory.
You might say, "Ok, what about a skill-based game like chess?" There is a ton of luck in chess, regardless of skill level. That's not to say that a casual player is going to beat Magnus, but let's say that a random person gets online to play chess. They were up all night drinking and it's their first game of the day. They haven't played in a while, and their game is rusty. They haven't done any tactics or other warm up exercises to refresh their brain. Their rating is 1600. They hit "play" and are matched up with a 1450 player who is on an 8 game winning streak and has been playing solid chess. The game is relatively equal through the opening, and neither player is playing based on memorized theory at this point. In other words, they are just "playing chess." A critical moment arises in the game, and the 1450 player has to make the perfect move, and he intuitively finds it, not because he has visualized the position, but because he is playing good chess and basically just "gets lucky" and makes the right move. The 1600 player has to find the perfect move to counter the 1450 player's move and he doesn't find it. The 1450 player wins the game. Was it because the 1450 player is better, or because he got lucky?
Oh, so you want an example that's not based on competition? Ok, how about this: As I type this I have these annoying gnats flying around my computer screen. Every time I sit down at my computer they appear out of nowhere to annoy the crap out of me. The more I swat at them, the more elusive they become. I called my buddy who is doing the exact same thing; he is sitting at his computer desk typing. He doesn't have any gnats harassing him, nor does he ever. "You probably have a dirty house or something," he says. But I don't. I just have these annoying gnats that love to annoy me when I'm sitting at my computer desk typing.
I could go on to give countless examples. But I want to clarify that belief in luck doesn't nullify providence. In fact, it validates it.
I'm not a big fan of kicking someone when they're down. Although, I'm not sure how "down" someone is if they just made $30 million in a minute, even if it did result in a torn up knee in the first seconds of the fight.
I don't know Conor's financial situation, but I assume he didn't come back for the money. I haven't heard any speculation that he came back for the money. He came back for the glory, competition and his legacy.
Last year I predicted that Conor McGregor would never win another UFC fight. I don't think that was any kind of bold prediction, but I'd up the bet if I was a gambling man.
It's interesting the way that fame and fortune will change a person. Conor had it all, and for some reason he just wasn't content with riding off in the sunset and enjoying the fruits of his labor.
The majority of people don't understand how tough it is to deal with boredom. Money can provide distractions until it doesn't. People will say things like, "If I had money and didn't have to work, I'd do this, that and the other," and they would, until they did all those things, then they'd get bored and come face-to-face with the devil on his playground, just like Conor did:
I was so sharp and so ready for this fight I cannot believe what has happened. The talk of me being off while walking in to the fight is nonsense. I was calm, ready, and confident. I am in shock what has taken place. The devil is literally staring at me right in front of my face…
When a man comes face-to-face with the devil is the moment free will sets in. You have the choice to accept or reject temptation. When you're a millionaire with nothing but time, this can be almost impossible. This is why the Bible refers to money as the "root of all evil."
Conor is finished as a fighter. I think everyone knows that. But now he is in the biggest fight of his life. The fight for his soul. Dostoevsky once said in the Brothers Karamazov that God and the devil are fighting and the battlefield is the heart of man.
Again, I assume Conor's motivation for his comeback wasn't money. But perhaps $30 million takes the sting off defeat. But, I would guess that even if it does, being content with the payday will only be temporary. Conor claims he is a man of God now. I think he knows without the armor of God that he is merely Satan's servant.
Ephesians 6:10-18 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
A wise man once said, "One's quality of life is co-dependent upon the quality of their distractions."
Those of you who are familiar with my TV viewing habits, know that I adhere to what I like to call the "Reality TV trinity," which is First 48, Jeopardy and UFC. Excluding those, I rarely use TV as a distraction. But, there are always exceptions, and last night I watched a true crime documentary and a movie, back-to-back, which is almost unheard of for me. Not so much because I'm so anti-TV, but mostly because my ADHD won't allow it.
First up was this rather disturbing documentary on Netflix titled Maternal Instincts:
If you've ever wondered about psychopathy, the woman in this show highlights it to a T. She is a sick, sick individual. She is such a compulsive liar that she comes to believe that she can murder a woman, cut her baby out of her stomach, and pass it off as her own. It's a bizarre story that epitomizes "truth is sometimes stranger than fiction."
It's easy to watch this kind of stuff and be like, "How in the hell could someone fall for this crap?" But when you watch the show, you can definitely empathize with the fella who got gaslighted by the psychopath. I mean, who thinks someone is going to lie about being pregnant, fake the pregnancy for 10 months, then go kill someone and cut out their baby to save face?
If you have an hour and a half of free time, access to Netflix and like true crime documentaries, then this is a highly recommended distraction for you.
Up next is a movie.
Now, look, I don't really watch movies at all. Particularly comedy/romance type flicks, but Midnight in Paris is actually worth wasting an hour and a half on if you're just looking to be distracted.
I came across this movie while reading an article about Gertrude Stein, whom I was unfamiliar with. Stein was portrayed in the movie as an eccentric art critic/collector and writer in 1920's Paris. She rubbed shoulders with the likes of Hemmingway, Picasso, Fitzgerald and others.
The movie itself was rather interesting, and quite enjoyable if I'm being honest. The main character, Owen Wilson, is a writer struggling with the golden age fallacy (thinking a different era is better than the current one), and every night at midnight he would travel back to 1920s Paris and interact with many of the greats of the era.
Wilson is initially is picked up by F. Scott Fitzgerald and his wife Zelda. They go to a bar and he is introduced to Ernest Hemmingway. Eventually, he meets Stein, and she and Hemmingway reviewed the manuscript for Wilson's book. He also had a brief romance with Picasso's fictitious mistress, Adrian, who ultimately enabled him to see the flaw in his golden age fallacy when they travel back to the late 1800s and she refuses to return to the 1920s after they go to the Moulin Rouge and they meet Toulouse-Lautrec, Gauguin and Degas, even though all three of them agree that the Renaissance age is the best era.
All-in-all, an excellent distraction that doesn't even require a streaming subscription, as it can be seen for free on Tubi. And, it's only an hour and a half long, so if you have ADHD like me, and hate movies that are longer than 2 hours, this is a good one for you.
Everyone agrees that the Bible was written to Israelites. Therefore, "Who is Israel?" is a rather important question. Let's talk about it.
I grew up a "John 3:16" Christian. What I mean by that, is that I cherry-picked a handful of Bible verses and that was the constitution of my religious faith. I never understood any Biblical theology.
The Bible says a lot of things. The Bible says a lot of contrary things. There is no other book that is open to interpretation the way that the Bible is. You can talk theology with 10 different people and get 10 different interpretations of scripture. Furthermore, there are like 100 different translations of the Bible.
That being said, once I stepped back and looked at the Bible for what it was (a will of covenants), it all made perfect sense. I credit the Holy Spirit with this profound personal revelation.
The Bible is the will (a testament is a will) of God.
The Bible is a book of covenants (conditional and unconditional).
The Bible is written to, for, by and about a specific group of people. God chose Abraham, his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob. Jacob (later named Israel) had 12 sons, who became the 12 tribes of Israel for which God made his covenants with. This bloodline is who God, through the prophets, wrote the old testament too.
God divorced His bride Israel in the old testament due to their disobedience.
Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
The new testament is commentary on the fulfillment of old testament prophesy. Most people believe that the new testament is somehow about everyone because of the word "gentiles." The new testament is all about God's remarriage to his bride.
Yes, God made a new covenant, but it was still with the same people. The new covenant places salvation on grace by faith instead of circumcision or the law.
Jeremiah 31:31 The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.
Gentiles just means "nations." By the time of the new testament, the nations of Israel had been scattered abroad for hundreds of years, due to a series of expulsions out of Jerusalem. Only a small remnant eventually returned. The remaining 10 "lost" tribes of Israel migrated and became the sons and daughters of Europe. These are the nations or "gentiles" that the new testament refers too. They are still the offspring of Abraham.
The question becomes, are these people those who we call "Jews" and live in modern day Israel?
No. Ashkenazi Jews (the majority of American and Israeli Jews) are Turkish Khazars who converted to Judaism and migrated to Eastern Europe in 12th and 13th century AD. They are not ancient Israelites.
Jesus himself spoke about this implicitly:
Revelations 2:9 I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
Ashkenazi Jews have not fulfilled any of God's promises to Abraham's seed. They haven't blessed the world. They haven't become a multitude of nations. They don't have an abundance of lands. They are the imposters for which the risen Christ spoke about in scripture.
I understand how to most Christians it doesn't really matter who are the "real" Jews and who are the "fake" ones. They are content with being "spiritual" Israel. And, I suppose in theory, that's good enough. There are many components at play when it comes to salvation. Grace is certainly atop the hierarchal ladder in my humble opinion. But if God's chosen (the sons and daughters of Europe) knew who they were, the world would be a much different place.
God is sovereign, not politically incorrect.
Jesus Christ is the kinsman redeemer. God came in the form of a sinless man to die on the cross for the sins of His people, so that he could be risen from the dead and remarry his bride, Israel.
